• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity must change or die

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
no that was one of the things i was referring to...as in ss marriages those others things are things that subject people to other peoples religious beliefs...
You didn't answer me. You claimed these things to be inalienable rights, how are they so? When were they ever?



How did you know that was my [usual] expression when I read your posts? So how are IDs a Christian thing? Or are you not going to answer?
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
"One aspect of repentance"? Funny how Jesus didn't mention that that was "one aspect of repentance".

Good thing he has people like you here to tell us what he really meant, huh?



He's not saying what you said either.

Single teachings of Jesus need to be read in the context of his whole message which is a little longer than one or two sentences.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
You didn't answer me. You claimed these things to be inalienable rights, how are they so? When were they ever?
ok let me make it clearer...

when christians believe they are in the position to vote on the inalienable rights of others...
ss marriges and the the things that impose religious beliefs on others such as:
blue laws
ID in public schools
birth control
teaching abstinence only in high schools


How did you know that was my [usual] expression when I read your posts? So how are IDs a Christian thing? Or are you not going to answer?
:biglaugh:



how are you helping your cause?
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
ok let me make it clearer...

when christians believe they are in the position to vote on the inalienable rights of others...
ss marriges and the the things that impose religious beliefs on others such as:
blue laws
ID in public schools
birth control
teaching abstinence only in high school
:biglaugh:

None of these are inalienable rights. I dont see how you do not get that.


And again, how to ID in publich schools impose religious beliefs???
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
A Modern Reformation of Christianity Articles « Belzian Educational Foundation

Christianity is a religion that has survived and flourished for nearly two thousand years. Through these years, it has changed, branched off, and evolved into what can be described as multiple Christianities. At the same time, much of Christianity has become stuck in the past, unwilling to change or improve. In the name of Christianity, atrocities are still committed, and intolerance justified. There are some forms of Christianity that has set out to rectify these wrongs; however, there are also those that refuse to make the changes that they need to. These forms of Christianity are now at a cross roads, in which they can choose to change for the better and continue into the 21st century, as respectable institutions, or they can slowly die out, leaving behind a legacy of intolerance, and disgust.

Before moving further though, it has to be realized that there is no single, defining form of Christianity. The religion, as would be expected, has changed many times throughout the course of its life, evolving into something better defined as multiple Christianities. Within this spectrum of Christianities, we see a vast variety of beliefs. We have on one side, those who see the Bible as infallible, the very word of God, and their form of Christianity as the only way. On the other side, we have those who see the Bible as an important historical or literary work, written by various different men for different reasons, and their form of Christianity only being one among many true ways.

This is important to realize as Christianity is extremely diverse. One form of Christianity does not define another form. What one group of Christians believe, is not necessarily what all Christians believe. By grouping all Christians together, one does an injustice to those Christians actively trying to make a difference, as well as isolate others who would have otherwise been willing to try to make matters better.

When I use the term Christianity in rest of this essay, I am referring to Christianity in general terms. I recognize that many Christians, and various forms of Christianities have already began changing for the better. I am not addressing those forms when I use the term Christianity. Instead, I am referring to the forms of Christianity that refuse to change, and insist of justifying intolerance, narrow mindedness, and unquestioning blind faith.

It should then be obvious as to why Christianity must change. The justification of intolerance is more than enough reason for a change to be made. It should be no surprise then that we see one of the major complaints about Christianity being that it is an intolerant religion. I see no better example than the consistent protests that are seen in European countries when the Pope visits. Without fail, we see charges of intolerance being leveled at the Church with each visit. Intolerance towards homosexuals, and the intolerance towards women (in the form of refusing to ordain women), are issues that are brought up repeatedly when the Pope goes to visit. This is clearly a sign that there is a major backlash against this intolerance that is being condoned and justified by a religion.

It is not just the intolerance towards groups of individuals that is the problem though. It is also the narrow minded thinking that many Christians, and in general the religious, are guilty of. The idea that “my way is the only right way” needs to be abandoned. The condemnation of an eternity in hell, for those who choose to believe in a way different than ones own, needs to be abandoned. Such a position is arrogant, and foolish. It shows the exact opposite of what Jesus said was one of the most important commandments; that is to love one's neighbor. One can not truly love their neighbor and at the same time condemn them to hell.

To have a god that condemns the vast majority of individuals to hell simply is not a loving god. It is a god full of hatred, and simply is pitiful. God does not have to be that way. One can truly believe in an all loving God, and still be true to their religion. One can believe in a God who is not so spiteful that it would send those who do not believe in it to hell for eternity (even though that God refuses to supply any evidence for it's existence, but relies on the follower to have faith). What it really comes down to though is the acceptance of others. It is becoming a little more humble, and acknowledging that they are not some extremely special individual that has been granted one of the few places in heaven. What is needed is for Christians to stop being so arrogant, so self-centered, that they believe only they are good enough to be worthy of all of God's love. Really, it means maturing.

It also means though that one should feel free to challenge their beliefs, and not just simply follow them blindly. When a religion is so easily used to justify atrocious acts, that religion needs to be questioned, and challenged. But even more so, the leaders, and member of that religion that allow their religion to be violated in such a disgusting manner, need to be challenged, and possibly removed from any form of power.

Christianity needs to be challenged. It needs to be questioned. It needs to change. For too long individuals have been allowed to hide behind a religion in order to justify their own intolerant beliefs. That is simply unacceptable, and should not be allowed any longer. And the people who must change this are other Christians. Christians can no longer allow others to sully the name of the faith they follow as well. They need to be the ones who instigate this change, that is long over due. It is no longer acceptable to simply stand aside and allow other Christians to continue to portray Christianity as a disgusting, and perverse belief system.

The illusion is that it hasn't been changing and that it's remained static throughout history. It's already changed significantly since it's first incarnations and it'll continue to change, evolve, and diverge into new denominations over time and despite the belief that there's such a thing as original or pure Christianity.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
i just don't understand why christians just don't trust god to work through them by being the meek and humble servants jesus told them to be...

i have a feeling those that want to argue for the rigt to impose thier religious agenda on others have a controlling issue....a very basic and human flaw that god doesn't seem to be able to help his followers with...

so far there is nothing that makes these controlling christians stand out as christians but rather as control freaks...
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Single teachings of Jesus need to be read in the context of his whole message which is a little longer than one or two sentences.

Problem is, if you already have a predetermined idea of what you want the "whole message" to be, you can make the individual teachings "say" whatever you want, which is what you appear to be doing.

Since "whole message" is a vague term---do you mean the message of that particular chapter? The message of that gospel? or the message of the entire Bible?

In the context of the rest of that chapter the verse I cited appears to mean just what I said it means.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
:biglaugh:

None of these are inalienable rights. I dont see how you do not get that.


And again, how to ID in publich schools impose religious beliefs???
one last time...
i didn't say that
blue laws
ID in public schools
birth control
teaching abstinence only in high school
were inalienable rights
 

Villager

Active Member
Are you suggesting that Jesus dressed in woman's clothing and robbed banks?
Is that what King James did? I had no idea.

The book he got up contained a spurious passage that was held to uphold trinitarianism (polytheism), but it didn't actually do that, and polytheism had been widespread throughout Europe for a thousand years, anyway. But the 'KJV' at least permitted Christian belief, because it was not contradicted by human canons. The prevalent belief after the Dark Age (in northern Europe, anyway) was that nothing that could not be proved from the Bible was to be required of of anyone, which was a tremendous step in human social evolution. The Bible helped form the basis of freedom of belief that we all in the West enjoy today, in theory, anyway.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
I'm thinking you completely missed the point of the OP. Because the OP does explain what I am talking about. That Christians, and forms of Christianities, need to cease the intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and the unquestioning blind faith.

So I think you should reread the OP.

I read the OP, I just didn't agree with it, so you immediately assume I didn't understand it. How typical. How does intolerance, narrow-mindedness and unquestioning blind faith make Christianity any different than any other religion? How does it make them stuck in the past? You think tolerance and open mindedness is some how linked to religious survival? Where did that come from? I agree that these changes are very desirable and many of us want to see them happen. But the survival of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not hinge on them.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Is that what King James did? I had no idea.

The book he got up contained a spurious passage that was held to uphold trinitarianism (polytheism), but it didn't actually do that, and polytheism had been widespread throughout Europe for a thousand years, anyway. But the 'KJV' at least permitted Christian belief, because it was not contradicted by human canons. The prevalent belief after the Dark Age (in northern Europe, anyway) was that nothing that could not be proved from the Bible was to be required of of anyone, which was a tremendous step in human social evolution. The Bible helped form the basis of freedom of belief that we all in the West enjoy today, in theory, anyway.

That's nice, but what does all of that have to do with what we were talking about?

Why don't you just rewrite the Bible?
It's been tried. Muhammad, Smith, Russell, and of course the Vatican. It just doesn't cut any ice.
...and the group that authored the King James....

Btw, when did Muhammad rewrite the Bible? :shrug:
 

Villager

Active Member
That's nice, but what does all of that have to do with what we were talking about?
I still don't have any real clue what you were talking about. King James? Women's clothing? Banks? :shrug:

What it has to do with is the subject of this thread, which is Christianity, and its nature. If the Bible is used as the sole standard of behaviour, as it was after the Dark Age, freedom of speech, and absence of coercion, are guaranteed, because they are what the Bible advocate. They became the norm in northern Europe, and spread to southern Europe, to the colonies, and to the Western world generally. The non-Islamic world owes a debt to the Bible for its freedom. But few are grateful, and even abuse their freedom (if not their intelligence) by opposing those who advocate use of the Bible!

So any movement or organisation that has relied for its existence on coercion, on censorship, that restricts freedom of expression in any way (within secular law) is not to be accounted Christian, and any representation of Christianity as coercive or accepting coercion, in this thread, or anywhere else, is either uninformed or deliberately libellous.

Btw, when did Muhammad rewrite the Bible? :shrug:
7th century CE. (Unless he didn't do so, and the job was done by others. The original script was entirely lost.)
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
I still don't have any real clue what you were talking about. King James? Women's clothing? Banks? :shrug:

What it has to do with is the subject of this thread, which is Christianity, and its nature. If the Bible is used as the sole standard of behaviour, as it was after the Dark Age, freedom of speech, and absence of coercion, are guaranteed, because they are what the Bible advocate. They became the norm in northern Europe, and spread to southern Europe, to the colonies, and to the Western world generally. The non-Islamic world owes a debt to the Bible for its freedom. But few are grateful, and even abuse their freedom (if not their intelligence) by opposing those who advocate use of the Bible!

So any movement or organisation that has relied for its existence on coercion, on censorship, that restricts freedom of expression in any way (within secular law) is not to be accounted Christian, and any representation of Christianity as coercive or accepting coercion, in this thread, or anywhere else, is either uninformed or deliberately libellous.

You were trying to cloud the issue (still are). I was just letting you know that amateurish maneuvers like that don't work here. :rolleyes:
Not that I expect that to stop you.

7th century CE. (Unless he didn't do so, and the job was done by others. The original script was entirely lost.)

You obviously know even less about the Qaran than you do about the Bible.


And you need to knock off the sermons. That not what this place is for.
 
Last edited:

Awoon

Well-Known Member
"Christianity must change or die."

OK which one? Yours, Angelous, Jacob Ezra, Sojouner, Pegg, Robert Funk's (rip) or any other named Christian?

Please tell us already.
 
Last edited:

Villager

Active Member
You obviously know even less about the Qaran than you do about the Bible.
It's possible that nobody knows what the Qur'an actually said. It's possible that Muhammad would have disagreed with what went into the Qur'an that now exists under his name. We have only the word of later witnesses to those who were said to have memorised Muhammad's teachings; and many omissions, to say nothing of deliberate distortions, could have gone into the final version (and even the identity of that is disputed).

What is certain is that the Qur'an as used today contradicts the Bible in many, many, ways.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
It's possible that nobody knows what the Qur'an actually said. It's possible that Muhammad would have disagreed with what went into the Qur'an that now exists under his name. We have only the word of later witnesses to those who were said to have memorised Muhammad's teachings; and many omissions, to say nothing of deliberate distortions, could have gone into the final version (and even the identity of that is disputed).

What is certain is that the Qur'an as used today contradicts the Bible in many, many, ways.

Alright. Enough. :facepalm:

This is like trying to have a conversation with a Magic 8-ball.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
From what I recall aren't the "Christianities" that are "stuck in the past" among the fastest growing denominations? Catholic, Mormon, etc.

These practice the "intolerance" that will supposedly lead to stagnation and death, but are the ones growing.
 
Top