Can Christianity Adapt to Survive?

[joe1776]

I read the link and nowhere in it did it suggest that Pope Francis said atheists can get to heaven by doing good, as you claimed.

Pope Francis said:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Perhaps, I misunderstood what I was reading. Could you state you other opinion on this point?

Sure. I agree with you. I think the you're right that the more conservative and traditional churches will hold on longer than the more liberal churches. It makes sense.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

First, since we're talking about whether I'm Biblical or not, according to the Bible the divinity is invisible and spiritual, not physical. I think a disembodied mind implies physicality, so does calling God a thing.

Well I'd agree that I've never met a mind that was without a physical brain, but is a "disembodied mind" physical? It's not my definition btw, I don't think such a thing exists, but "god" is such a subjective term I like to get an idea of what the other person is talking about so we don't talk past each other.
For "thing" I guess you could substitute "entity" or "person", not necessarily physical of course, but I've no idea what a non physical person is, anymore than a disembodied mind so fair enough. While I'm about it, I'm not really sure what "God is spirit" actually means either, if it is a reference to human spirit, the more selfless and loving aspects of human spirit, I'm not sure why we don't call it that instead of "God".
Finally, just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, I'm not calling you unbiblical mate, that will always be a debate between religious people, it seems to vary in meaning from individual to individual.

In answer to your question 'Why' its personal. Physically I am inspired by the people I've encountered, by the things I've seen accomplished, by ideas about the future, things I envision, pain I've seen and all kinds of thoughts. It is not one thing. I do not think that people are strongly attracted to God, including myself. I think (and the idea comes from the Bible) we each have God in us, just the amount that we are willing to be and to have; and allowing God to be in us is not easy and does not happen without losing some of our selfishness. I sometimes think of God as pinpoints of light shining out of people (just as much as anyone will allow), and then I imagine all those pinpoints shining from many different people. That is analogous to working with people towards selfless goals, and I think it is about the pinnacle of spirituality that a selfish creature such as a human person can attain. Goodness knows people have tried to do better and have destroyed themselves in the process. You can, for example, feed the hungry by going hungry yourself; and its a very spiritual thing that you cannot sustain. You have to eat.

Detecting God seems impossible, sort of like detecting gravity waves nearly is impossible. Seeing God is a process that involves your entire self, and you have to allow yourself to be used by God. That is the only way to detect God that I know of, and I believe this is the God which the Christian Bible talks about 100%. It talks about the unseen, the undetectable God. It is completely relevant and reasonable for someone to ask "Why believe in God at all?" and for someone else to say "Maybe you are just making it all up." However, I do believe. Not only that, I'm a longtime Bible student and have wandered the fields of this tiny universe all of my life tapping and knocking and seeing things; and I don't give a toot if some uneducated person who pays to have their ears scratched thinks that they have a leg up or thinks God is physical. They are not going to impress me with that claptrap.

OK, you seem to be saying (I maybe making it too simple for your taste) that "God" is an expression of the finer points of human nature, the loving and selfless elements, individually and collectively. If so, yes we are not far apart. I call myself a (secular) humanist, I suspect we'd both vote for similar things if we had free reign to change ten things about humanity. If I'm wide of the mark I'm sure you'll let me know!

 

[Glaurung]

BTW, being a "traditionalist" is actually an example of being "ideologically driven" because it's an agenda.

Indeed, it's the ideology of keeping true to the traditions of the Latin Church bequeathed to us down the centuries. We all have an agenda and the agenda of those who tore down the high altars, sold off the statues, watered down the liturgy, hid away the tabernacle, built ugly churches and derided traditional teaching is a particularly odious one. It is the iconoclastic worship of modernity. Or rather, a notion of modernity that stopped being relevant decades ago.

Then let me recommend not attending "boomer imposed" churches.

I don't, I am fortunate enough to be able to attend and altar serve at a Personal Ordinariate parish. The liturgy is always splendid. It is sad however that Anglican converts better encapsulate the Catholic liturgical tradition than the majority of mainstream Roman Rite parishes.

But growing up I did not have that same privilege. I probably would never have fallen away from the Church if I did. Whitewashed walls, abstract art, tambourines and drum-kits and other such banalities don't inspire the notion that you're a part of a ancient tradition worth respect.

Nor is this a "liberal" or "conservative" thingy as far as I'm concerned. Also, if you have "no interest in what regard", then maybe just ignore my posts.

What I have no interest in is your disparaging of tradition as potentially hateful and bigoted. Of course, these days anything less than a full embrace of indifferentism is bigoted, but I don't particularly care. It's not the secular world I'm trying to please.

Seems to me you have a chip on your shoulder, and I don't think that's much conducive to any serious discussion.

Yes, years of being forced to sing the nonsense that passes for liturgical music since Vatican II for one. I am angry, angry that almost two generations of Catholics have had their tradition stolen from them by 'intellectuals' from the 60's and 70's. What does the Novus Ordo Church actually offer? If it's ditties and fuzzy teachings I'll pass.

Look, the issue is that I want something more substantive in my religion. But apparently that makes me and others like me the problem if Pope Francis' words on the issue are to be taken seriously. Fundamentally I reject the iconoclasm that was unleashed in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Glaurung]

If he didn't say what I thought he said, why do you feel it necessary to stress that it's his own opinion?

Two reasons, Pope Francis has a tendency to speak off the cuff. Secondly, there's a media narrative that paints the current pope as some reformer who is going to overturn centuries of teaching and embrace liberalism. I also say that because even if Pope Francis does says something a little out there, that alone doesn't actually mean all that much.

That's a false analogy because the parish priest had nothing to do with making fornication a sin. But suppose a Catholic's conscience feels nothing wrong with consensual sex with a woman, neither married and neither cheating. Why should he ignore his conscience and obey a rule made by men who were sinful?

Your personal feelings about what is right and wrong are not adequate. They have their place, but never alone. We are all fallen and wounded by sin, thus it is very easy for us to rationalise what we want to do. Wouldn't be convenient to be able to decide that I feel that there is nothing wrong with extra-martial sex? But that's simply not the way things operate. God has inscribed a moral law, and it is by that law we will all be judged. And in the case of fornication, God has made Himself pretty clear about that law in the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

I always thought the Church looked weak when it tried to make excuses for its past mistakes rather than admit them. I respected John Paul II for his confessions.

The problem isn't admitting one's mistakes, that's admirable. The problem is to blame the Church for the realities of medieval world, such as the constant presence of warfare. (And that the Turks were on the very steps of Constantinople).

That the Crusades happened is nothing to apologise for, that the abuse scandal did however, is.

 

[sun rise]

I think it's worth noting this argument about faith and works. I'm not saying I agree with it, but clearly there's an argument about Christians needing works and not only faith.

Jesus says it similarly. Are we saved by faith in Jesus? Certainly! John 11:25:

I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.

Are we saved by faith alone? No way! As we saw before, in Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to a rich young man who had asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life:

… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Or, how about Matthew 12:36-37? Here, Jesus says:

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

That sounds like there is more to this justification thing than faith alone.

Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation? | Catholic Answers

 

[Mister Emu]

Pope Francis said

Yes, I know what he said. Do you see "Do good and you will get to heaven"? No; he said we'll meet in doing good works. We don't harangue someone doing good about their beliefs, we work with them and build as he said the "culture of encounter".

Sure. I agree with you. I think the you're right that the more conservative and traditional churches will hold on longer than the more liberal churches. It makes sense.

Then it seems like you would agree with me that the adaption Christianity needs to make, if it wants to survive as long as possible(and assuming that it is not divinely ordained) is towards traditionalism not away from it.

 

[pearl]

A traditionalist is a person who supports the established customs and beliefs of his or her society or group, and does not want to change them.

What these traditionalists refuse to recognize is that the Church has a history of change, both positive and negative. It took its liturgy from the synagogue, and, unfortunately, its juridicism from Rome. In the Council of Trent it adapted to the Reformation by an absolutist papacy, a certain defensive turning of the Church in on itself against the world.

But now, Pope Francis, a good and humble man, has said that even atheists might get to Heaven with good works. Wow, imagine that! The traditionalists must have had strokes when they heard that.

Until Jorge Mario Bergoglio no pope had taken the name Francis, and with good reason if one remembers Francis of Assisi. Right from the beginning Pope Francis chose a different style; no bejewelled golden mitre, no ermine-trimmed crimson cape, no tailor made red shoes and ermine trimmed red cap, no pompous papal throne, the emblem of papal political might. (Hans Kung, [Can we save the Catholic Church)
One of the greatest obstacles to reform is the Roman curia itself with its clericalism.

What happens to the requirements for Salvation? Why would anyone need the Catholic church or any other Christian faith?

Karl Rahner, a noted Catholic theologian, refers to an 'Anonymous Christianity which means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity… Let us say, a Buddhist monk… who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity."

 

[omega2xx]

Another subject, but the Faith of Muhammad is mentioned in Daniel and Revelation. The 'Two Witnesses' of Revelation with a Faith 'Clothed in Sackcloth' for 1260 Years was that of Muhammad and his Appointed Successor Ali. The year AH1260 is also the year AD1844. Muhammad was the First Woe, the Bab was the 2nd Woe and Baha'u'llah the 3rd Woe that came quickly.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfill all Torah expectations for the 'Day of the Lord' and all New Testament promises for the End of the Age/Era.

Once upon a time.....and they lived happily ever after.

Why would God use 2 witnesses whose teachings contradict the Bible, as His witnesses? Answer---He wouldn't.

As God has given you free will to do. We thank God that there were people that accepted Jesus the Christ. In this is a warning for all humanity.

I don't know much about Bahai, but it seems unlikely that you are taught to make Jesus you Lord and Savior as taught in the NT as the only way of salvation. It seems you consider Him only a prophet, not God in the flesh.

There is only One God and Christianity needs to be concerned as they have Made God exclusively theirs. WE have not done that, God has done it through His inspired word.

Muhammad offered the Christians a warning that is what they were doing.

Who cares what Muhammad says? He is not a prophet of God.

• People of the Book

  , do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. — Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171[3

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Trinity#cite_note-3

That contradicts the Bible, therefor it was not inspired by God. Therefor it is to be rejected. It seems to me you people need to get on one horse and ride it instead of changing horse when it seem better.

Regards Tony

Back at ya.

Food for thought: I Pet 3:22 - Who(Jesus the Christ) who is at the right hand of God, having gone through the heavens...

 

[pearl]

I think it's worth noting this argument about faith and works. I'm not saying I agree with it, but clearly there's an argument about Christians needing works and not only faith.

There is James 2:14-26, 'faith without works is dead'.
Also Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World -

 

[omega2xx]

The span of history I was referring to usually is hundreds to thousands of years, plus I'm covering the religions as a whole. "Conservative Christianity" as you're describing (fundamentalist Protestantism), is not even 200 years old and only covers a relatively small fraction of Christians internationally.

Time is irrelevant. Christianity started as being conservative. That is what the NT teaches. Then under the RCC, it became corrupt. Then the reformation turned it back to fundamentalism. Today it is divided between liberalism and conservatism.

While overall church membership is declining. It is gaining in conservative denominations and declining in liberal denominations.

 

[joe1776]

Two reasons, Pope Francis has a tendency to speak off the cuff. Secondly, there's a media narrative that paints the current pope as some reformer who is going to overturn centuries of teaching and embrace liberalism. I also say that because even if Pope Francis does says something a little out there, that alone doesn't actually mean all that much.

Your response simply repeats with more emphasis the points you made before. It doesn't answer my question which was: If he didn't say what I thought he said, why do you feel it necessary to stress that it's his own opinion?

Your personal feelings about what is right and wrong are not adequate. They have their place, but never alone.

What does that mean? In a moral conflict such as the one I've created here, either conscience or the church's teaching must prevail. As a Catholic, why should I trust an interpretation of scripture over my God-given conscience when the men who made that interpretation were themselves sinners?

And let's be clear: I'm not ignoring the warning of my conscience. There is no warning because no one is being harmed. I'm only ignoring a rule made by men claiming the authority to make such rules.

And in the case of fornication, God has made Himself pretty clear about that law in the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

I won't bother looking it up because it doesn't really matter whether the law is clear as you see it since, in your church, it isn't up to you to decide what it meant or whether the scripture should be taken literally. God's Word is whatever the church hierarchy says it is -- which gets us back to a choice in a moral conflict: God-given conscience versus Church hierarchy (which not that long ago didn't condemn Hitler for his crimes against the Jews).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well I'd agree that I've never met a mind that was without a physical brain, but is a "disembodied mind" physical? It's not my definition btw, I don't think such a thing exists, but "god" is such a subjective term I like to get an idea of what the other person is talking about so we don't talk past each other.
For "thing" I guess you could substitute "entity" or "person", not necessarily physical of course, but I've no idea what a non physical person is, anymore than a disembodied mind so fair enough. While I'm about it, I'm not really sure what "God is spirit" actually means either, if it is a reference to human spirit, the more selfless and loving aspects of human spirit, I'm not sure why we don't call it that instead of "God".
Finally, just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, I'm not calling you unbiblical mate, that will always be a debate between religious people, it seems to vary in meaning from individual to individual.

The phrase 'God is spirit' is an NT phrase. 'God' in the Hebrew scriptures (Tanach) is a different term with some overlapping meaning. There it can refer to a judge, to a king, to someone with moral judgment; but I think it also refers to the concept of moral judgment that operates within them, including the concept of wisdom. In the Greek Koine of the NT the Greek term for God is pronounced 'Theos' and has extended meaning due to the connotations of that word in Greek (and possibly due to the influence of Greek philosophy upon Christianity). Theos, the Greek term, is the essence of divinity, like juice is the essence of an orange. It is what makes gods valuable -- their essence, or it is all gods as a whole lumped together and pressed into one idea. In the Bible what makes them valuable if at all is their morality. So if you accept my explanations, then this is what is meant when a NT gospel writer has Jesus to say "God is spirit."

OK, you seem to be saying (I maybe making it too simple for your taste) that "God" is an expression of the finer points of human nature, the loving and selfless elements, individually and collectively. If so, yes we are not far apart. I call myself a (secular) humanist, I suspect we'd both vote for similar things if we had free reign to change ten things about humanity. If I'm wide of the mark I'm sure you'll let me know!

Here is where we differ. You do not believe in God, and I do. Perhaps you believe morality is composed of human will and biology mixed together. I do not. I believe beauty is real, not just something invented by humans. I believe compassion and good judgment are real, and while the perfect balance of the two seems beyond our grasp it exists. As for secular humanism I think it is a stealthy reformation of Christianity, sponsored and supported by Christians seeking to return to moral principles and to turn away from problems of the past. I've no objection to secular humanists.

 

[joe1776]

Then it seems like you would agree with me that the adaption Christianity needs to make, if it wants to survive as long as possible(and assuming that it is not divinely ordained) is towards traditionalism not away from it.

If survival at any cost was the goal, yes, that's what they should do. But, since moral progress would be the price, I can't see that course as a good option because its a concession to arrogance.

If we go back to the mid-60s, Catholics thought of themselves as an elite group favored by God and on the only path to Heaven. That makes a powerful appeal to the arrogant side of human nature -- even more powerful than the Jews thinking of themselves as God's chosen people.

Do you really want to return your church to its past? I don't want to see it. I think that with its vast resources even a smaller Catholic Church, with its act cleaned up, can do a helluva lot of good in the world.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Once upon a time.....and they lived happily ever after.

Why would God use 2 witnesses whose teachings contradict the Bible, as His witnesses? Answer---He wouldn't.

There is no contradiction. The understanding is found in what it is to be clothed in sackcloth, which is putting on old cloths. This is telling us that the Religion of Muhammad was to be seen as the Jewish Faith was, a Law based Faith.

This is not to be scoffed at, consider we are to search all things and hold on to what is good. There is much written on this, many logical proofs and information given. It is our God Given Free Will that allows us to look with Justice.

May you take up that challenge.

I don't know much about Bahai, but it seems unlikely that you are taught to make Jesus you Lord and Savior as taught in the NT as the only way of salvation. It seems you consider Him only a prophet, not God in the flesh.

Jesus is who He said He was 100%

Is it likely, considering all the warnings in the Bible, that all the Christains do know what the Bible is saying? It is more likely that error has crept into correct understanding of scripture. Daniel sealed the books, they were opened in the last days. Many explanations were given by man that built doctrine in the time the books were sealed. It may be the doctrine is what Christ warned about when he told us not to add to the book.

This all has many explanations.

Regards Tony

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

The phrase 'God is spirit' is an NT phrase. 'God' in the Hebrew scriptures (Tanach) is a different term with some overlapping meaning. There it can refer to a judge, to a king, to someone with moral judgment; but I think it also refers to the concept of moral judgment that operates within them, including the concept of wisdom. In the Greek Koine of the NT the Greek term for God is pronounced 'Theos' and has extended meaning due to the connotations of that word in Greek (and possibly due to the influence of Greek philosophy upon Christianity). Theos, the Greek term, is the essence of divinity, like juice is the essence of an orange. It is what makes gods valuable -- their essence, or it is all gods as a whole lumped together and pressed into one idea. In the Bible what makes them valuable if at all is their morality. So if you accept my explanations, then this is what is meant when a NT gospel writer has Jesus to say "God is spirit.".

OK, I would condense that to "God" is the innate morality and wisdom in human minds, the similes you used about essence, to me, don't really add or clarify anything. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate poetry and figurative language, but in this context they didn't scratch the itch. I've no problem with people using "God" in that metaphorical sense, though I still see no good reason to give it that label as "God" is a very changeable term depending on your cultural background and (of course) your religious beliefs. It could almost be substituted with a question mark, which is why I wanted to drill down into what it means to you.

Here is where we differ. You do not believe in God, and I do. Perhaps you believe morality is composed of human will and biology mixed together. I do not. I believe beauty is real, not just something invented by humans. I believe compassion and good judgment are real, and while the perfect balance of the two seems beyond our grasp it exists. As for secular humanism I think it is a stealthy reformation of Christianity, sponsored and supported by Christians seeking to return to moral principles and to turn away from problems of the past. I've no objection to secular humanists.

Sure, I wouldn't object to that definition of morality, I'm a materialist only because that is the reality that humanity shares, and all other realities proposed by religion have to be believed in literally by faith. I may not believe life has any meaning in the final analysis, but of course that doesn't mean I lack emotion and passion, it is part of our evolutionary make up of course. I see beauty, love, and I see the spectrum of other emotions to be a very real part of the experience of existence, I embrace them but I always try to temper that with rational thought.
I've enjoyed our exchange, glad to hear you have no beef with secular humanists, I think we are batting for the same team essentially.

 

[omega2xx]

There is no contradiction. The understanding is found in what it is to be clothed in sackcloth, which is putting on old cloths. This is telling us that the Religion of Muhammad was to be seen as the Jewish Faith was, a Law based Faith.

Belief what you want, but it does contradict the Bible, making in of no value. Putting on sackclosth was not putting on old clothe, It was putting on a cloth that was rough and would make you feel uncomortable.

This is not to be scoffed at, consider we are to search all things and hold on to what is good. There is much written on this, many logical proofs and information given. It is our God Given Free Will that allows us to look with Justice.

It is not the looking that is the problem. It is the understanding. What is worse is mixing religions whose writing contradicts each other.

]May you take up that challenge.

Of course but you need to better than what you have done so far. Saying Muhammad and your Bahai guy are the 2 witness of Revaltion is laughable.

Jesus is who He said He was 100%

Congratulations, you finally got something right.

Is it likely, considering all the warnings in the Bible, that all the Christains do know what the Bible is saying? It is more likely that error has crept into correct understanding of scripture.

It is more likely, you don' tknow what you are talking abut.

OK, I would condense that to "God" is the innate morality and wisdom in human minds, the similes you used about essence, to me, don't really add or clarify anything. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate poetry and figurative language, but in this context they didn't scratch the itch. I've no problem with people using "God" in that metaphorical sense, though I still see no good reason to give it that label as "God" is a very changeable term depending on your cultural background and (of course) your religious beliefs. It could almost be substituted with a question mark, which is why I wanted to drill down into what it means to you.

I don't think God is ever used in a metaphor and He is not changeable. Let me give you a b it of advice.Don't try to mix Christianity with other religions, It will make you look foolish, because you don't understand Christianity. or the Bib le.

Sure, I wouldn't object to that definition of morality, I'm a materialist only because that is the reality that humanity shares, and all other realities proposed by religion have to be believed in literally by faith. I may not believe life has any meaning in the final analysis, but of course that doesn't mean I lack emotion and passion, it is part of our evolutionary make up of course. I see beauty, love, and I see the spectrum of other emotions to be a very real part of the experience of existence, I embrace them but I always try to temper that with rational thought.
I've enjoyed our exchange, glad to hear you have no beef with secular humanists, I think we are batting for the same team essentially.

Part of what you say is true IMO, but we are not on the same team. WE are not even in the same ballpark, All religions contradict much of Christianity.

Daniel sealed the books, they were opened in the last days. Many explanations were given by man that built doctrine in the time the books were sealed. It may be the doctrine is what Christ warned about when he told us not to add to the book.

This all has many explanations.

We can't explain it until the book is opened.

 

[Windwalker]

Are religions pathways to the truth or just the claims of men who meant well, but knew no more than you or me?

They can be both. It is my belief that most authentic religions were started as a higher vision of truth by those who had them. Subsequently, those who did not themselves out of their followers became leaders and spoke from a less than enlightened place. In the latter case they may not be any more enlightened than those they purport to teach or lead.

This is particularly true in Protestant circles where leadership is really nothing more than cults of personality, not spiritual guides. At least in Catholicism priests had to be trained and approved for leadership roles. How effective the system worked is another question, but at least in theory it could help to vett out the idiots.

It can take very long time for all the false claims to fall away and leave the truth. The claim of exclusive rights lasted about two thousand years. Think of all the people who were on false paths during their lifetimes while that happened.

Since you are making claims of true and false paths, you must have some idea of what you think a "true religion" should be, since you stated, or at least agreed with earlier as well that a "true religion" would never need to change. That idea really puzzles me. On what basis do you imagine that should be true? You seem to have some notion of what the "real" truth is?

 

[joe1776]

Since you are making claims of true and false paths, you must have some idea of what you think a "true religion" should be, since you stated, or at least agreed with earlier as well that a "true religion" would never need to change. That idea really puzzles me. On what basis do you imagine that should be true? You seem to have some notion of what the "real" truth is?

As I see it, a true religion doesn't exist. If it did, the claim of being divinely inspired would not need to be explained (each religion has its own definition which sometimes changes). Its scripture would be perfectly clear and its moral guidance would never need to be upgraded. The clergy preaching its message would never need to change because it would be free of errors from the beginning.

I see the truth as always emerging. For example, the Christian version of God loves conditionally -- "I will love you if you please me." We have learned that conditional love probably shouldn't be considered love at all. Its goal seems to be to use someone's need for love to manipulate-coerce compliance. Genuine love is always unconditional, so the idea of eternal punishment in Hell for any reason seems absurd and the notion of Hell for non-believers becomes absurdly unjust.

Another example: The truth about the immorality of slavery eventually emerged despite its having been condoned by texts considered sacred to religious faithful.

 

[Windwalker]

It is never too late to repent, even for the most committed atheist. But if you should die in conscious and unrepentant rejection of God then that is to die in mortal sin.
...

The requirements have not and will not change. Anyone who dies in culpable rejection of the truth will not be saved.

What I find interesting in this idea is that we really aren't defining what this 'rejection of God' is. Is the atheist simply saying that they cannot accept certain definitions of God as laid out in various theologies as being rationally valid, or are they rejecting what "God" symbolizes beyond such theological definitions, viz., love, truth, goodness, beauty, compassion, forgiveness, and so forth?

In reality, there are very few, exceptionally few humans who actually do "reject God', when understood as Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The only humans who do that are typically broken people psychologically; psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. And if that is the case, which I believe it is, God would no more 'damn' those who are ill to hell than he would damn your child to hell for being crippled from disease that hit him in his youth. Those sorts of people have diseases. They don't "choose" to be that. These are real problems for people, not 'choices'.

If however to not 'reject God', someone must accept and agree with a theological statement for salvation, then that's a very unacceptable notion of what Truth, Goodness, and Beauty on the scale of the Divine should express itself as. I find that to say the least, lacking Compassion.

What you (or the world) thinks is credible is irrelevant. The truth isn't a democracy.

What people claim is the truth, is in fact a matter of what they think. Those who hold up scripture and proclaim, "This is the truth" as they speak the words, are in fact supplying their own thoughts and ideas about what the words mean. When you hear the words, they are filtered through your own ideas as well. Nothing hits your mind, or any mind, anywhere, at any time in history, without including their own ideas. Every word ever read or heard, is interpreted.

So yes, what people think is 'credible' is absolutely relevant. In fact, it is critically relevant. To claim it's not is to try to foist their own beliefs as absolute truth, divesting themselves of any self-responsibility by saying such things as, "These are not my words, they're God's." That never is actually the case. Even my words here enter into your mind and in the end reflect your ideas in what they purportedly mean. It's inescapable.

 

[metis]

What I have no interest in is your disparaging of tradition as potentially hateful and bigoted.

I didn't say nor imply that. Matter of fact, I did mention that in some areas I am "traditional"-- remember? Not all traditions are equal, and Jesus and the apostles certainly weren't traditional.

Yes, years of being forced to sing the nonsense that passes for liturgical music since Vatican II for one.

This reminds me of one of my Catholic neighbors years ago getting so upset with the switch from Latin to English at mass so that she stopped going for a while. The point I would have liked to have made to her is that Jesus taught about faith, compassion, and justice being foremost, not about whether the mass should be in Latin, English, or Swahili.

 

[metis]

Christianity started as being conservative.

Absolutely false because if Jesus and the apostles were "conservatives they would have stuck with the entire 613 Mosaic Laws as found in Torah. They were actually quite radical in their approach.

Then under the RCC, it became corrupt.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Was there some corruption in the CC (it was not the "RCC" back then)? Of course. Has there been any corruption in your denomination? You know there's been some.

Churches are not corrupt, but some people in churches, including some leaders, well may be.

BTW, that "corrupt" CC chose the Bible you use, so since you feel the church was corrupt, then maybe pass your Bible on to someone who believes in it and understands where it comes from and how.

Then the reformation turned it back to fundamentalism.

Not really. The Christian Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles. Protestants ignore the fact that Jesus said that the church he started would be guided until the end of time. Since Protestant churches did not exist back then, ...

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I don't think God is ever used in a metaphor and He is not changeable. Let me give you a b it of advice.Don't try to mix Christianity with other religions, It will make you look foolish, because you don't understand Christianity. or the Bib le.

I was directing those comments at Brickjectivity mate, he is a Quaker Christian, so he probably has some different views on what "God" means compared to you. The term "God" means different things to different people, I imagine I could get some surprisingly different definitions from the people you share a pew with on a Sunday morning (I know I could! ). I don't believe a deity or deities exist, so for me "God" is a term describing a fictional character, the universe, or any other concept, and I find it an endlessly changeable term depending on who I am talking to.

Part of what you say is true IMO, but we are not on the same team. WE are not even in the same ballpark, All religions contradict much of Christianity.

Again, I was talking to Quaker, not a Presbyterian, so agreed we probably have a lot less in common.

 

[metis]

What I have no interest in is your disparaging of tradition as potentially hateful and bigoted.

First of all, I did not disparage tradition, and as a matter of fact I said in some areas I also am quite traditional. Please respond to that which I actually post.

Yes, years of being forced to sing the nonsense that passes for liturgical music since Vatican II for one.

Jesus' main teachings deal with faith, love for all, and justice/fairness, and you're worried about the music?

Anyhow, ...