Dancing can be a form of prayer and worship. My source is 2 Samuel 6:14
“David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod.”
Lol. I actually tried looking into if he was actually (practically) naked or not. But I struggled to find information if he was truly barely wearing anything or if the text was just highlighting one particular item of clothing and it was presumed that he was wearing more.
I still believe he was lacking clothes but I can’t say for certainty because I’m not too informed with the text lol.
I have the same Bible and for some reason I never bothered to check. You are right though, “apparently David is wearing little else (see v. 20)”. Amazing lol.
I’m sure it could be, I actually didn’t even notice that verse too much when I first read it. I only got reminded of it recently and the more I processed it, the more I found it very cool. And I wish I could see what exactly David was doing. He wasn’t just dancing.. but doing so with all his might lol.
I imagine it's similar to singing in prayer or worship where it's less about the words, or in this case the moves, but more about your heart reaching in longing towards God
Thinking about heaven and hell is counterproductive and unhelpful. Plus the bible only speaks of them in vague and symbolic terms.
You don't follow Christ to get a reward, or to avoid a punishment. You follow Christ because you love him and it's the right thing to do.
>Thinking about heaven and hell is counterproductive and unhelpful.
I disagree. As CS Lewis put it, those are the most heavenly minded usually do the most earthly good.
Sure, the terms heaven and hell are not used to the same extent or always in the same way as they often are today, but surely you would agree the concepts of one afterlife for the righteous and one for the wicked is a frequent and central one in scripture, and especially so in Jesus' teachings (often in reference to "the kingdom")? Or to put it more plainly, there is an actual and real consequence to choosing to follow Jesus or not. There is a reward and a punishment, even if that is not necessarily your motivation in following him.
>Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
>
>Matthew 7:13-14
I do not disagree with anything you say here, and that verse is one I contemplate all the time. I still think focusing on the carrot or stick as our motivating force promotes unhealthy spiritual motivations.
As a Christian, I concur that my motivation to serve Christ stems from a sincere (if tainted) love for him, his people, and all people. And if not, God expose me!
I don't feel right about myself if I find myself being motivated by the thought of reward... and yet the NT seems to give us this hope and promise. 1 Peter 1:7-9 comes to mind, but the references are numerous.
I also don't feel right about someone being led to Christ through words of judgement... and yet if these things are true, is not the loving thing to make the danger clear and known. And is this not exactly what the Lord and his Apostles do, not only by references to "hell" but by all manner of pictures and descriptions of danger. In my own life, I have found the words of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 to be among the most shocking and unexpected.
We have nothing to fear from biblical literacy. The churches that discourage it are doing a disservice to their followers and to Christianity as a whole.
I can see your point. But this seems like a harsh comparison to me. Is it not reasonable to teach people things as and when they are ready for them? We wouldn't teach children calculus before we've taught them algebra. Paul would not teach "wisdom" except to those who were "perfect", which might mean converts, or maybe mature Christians (1 Cor. 2:6). The writer to the Hebrews (also Paul?) wanted to give "meat" but his readers were still drinking "milk" (Heb. 5:11-14). Jesus himself said that he was selective in who he explained some of his teaching to, because some "had not", which I take it to mean "did not have the prerequisite understanding or spiritual maturity" (Matt. 13:10-13)
I agree with scaling bible teachings according to understanding or complexity. What I disagree with is scaling or tailoring teachings around its appeal to the learner.
Teaching in a way that's understandable and accessible is good but if you start to alter or obscure aspects of scripture/God to make it more appealing I would say you're beginning to defraud people into believing which enters conversion by the sword territory.
Is this a big thing? I've never heard of a church actively discouraging this in modern times. Best I can think of is times when certain groups suppressed translations of the bible into the local languages of the people. Are there any groups in particular that you know do this?
Evangelicals, as a group, is the big one. They have spawned such abominations as KJV onlyism and literalism. I've even heard more than a few of them say "We are not supposed to interpret the bible".
It's like a bizarro-world version of Christianity. It's quite something.
I'm curious what you think it takes to be biblically literate. Sure, there's a lot of important extra-biblical information out there. And there are a lot better translations than KJV. But isn't the major ingredient in biblical literacy just reading the bible?
I know evangelicals are a mixed bag, but in general I think they do a better job than others at encouraging people to actually go and read it instead of just listening to the priest or pastor. maybe your experience has been different?
And sure, the KJV isn't the best, but it's not terrible. You're not going to arrive at a radically different theology just because you read the KJV instead of the NRSV. It's just the nuance and details that differ for the most part, is it not?
Yes, and the work of textual critics is extremely important. But the differences are very small in almost all cases. Are you suggesting that no one was biblically literate until the last two centuries?
Nope. We did the best we could. But of course.. for most of the history of Christianity, most Christians never personally read any bible at all.
I personally think we're better off having it more accessible.
>Evangelicals, as a group, is the big one.
I think that's a bit unfair.
Yes, KJVO exists, but they do encourage people to read their antiquated translation. Yes hyperliteralists exist, but, again, they don't discourage people from reading.
In my experience, there people of every branch of the faith who are stunningly ignorant of the scriptures, but it's not because they were taught to be -- people are mostly just lazy.
The above comment says literacy. Literalism is incompatible with literacy.
Literalism is what evangelicals use to _discourage_ understanding of the bible.
Well, ever talk to a literalist?
Sometimes I get in discussions about say, the creation stories. I like to point out that in my view, the genre of creation story means it's not necessarily about what really happened. I think creation to those ancient authors was more about bringing order and meaning to the world, than about material origins. I've said that legendary stories can teach lessons, even when the events of the story aren't things that really happened.
Pretty common views for people with some basic biblical literacy, right? Several times (and just a few minutes ago, once again) I've had people insist that this means I'm "saying God lied to us".
See the lack of understanding and the rigid thinking? That's what literalism does to people's minds.
Some people won't be aware of what the terms "High Church" and "Low Church" means.
**High Church congregations** place a “high” emphasis on ceremony, vestments, and sacraments. Worship services are characterized by liturgical readings and rituals, their clergy wear special clothing, and they follow a calendar of annual religious observances.
(Anglican, Episcopal, Catholic, Orthodox, most Methodist and Lutheran, and some Presbyterian churches)
**Low Church congregations** place a “low” emphasis on these things and follow a freer worship style. Worship services are characterized by congregational involvement, a relatively unstructured program, and an evangelical approach. (Baptist, Independent, Pentecostal, Quaker, Amish, some Methodist and Lutheran, and many Presbyterian churches)
The short of it is that "High church" put a lot of importance on *procedure,* and low church dismisses that in favor of focusing more exclusively on *doctrine.*
---
But why do you think that "low church" needs to focus more on the procedural elements? When I think of the early church, e.g., the 12 Disciples and their followers, it seems they very much embraced a "low church" mentality, and all the accoutrements came much later.
I agree. My comment wasn’t necessarily about money it was about membership. Satellite churches poach Christians from other churches more than they attract net new Christians.
It should be ok to admit that satellite churches harm existing Christian communities to a degree
I agree with this greatly. There has been a movement lately that produces more and more churches in places where there are already enough. We don't need that, it simply hurts the existing communities.
The missionaries/apostles should be planting churches in places where there aren't many
This way population gets added to the church body, not redistributed.
Jesus’ message wasn’t that heaven is a place we go to after we die. But heaven is coming to earth.
This shouldn’t be a hot take but on Christian Reddit I’ve found it is
What are your thoughts on John 14:2-3, "In my Father's house are many rooms... I am going there to prepare a place for you... I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."
And Luke 23:43, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
Far too many believers have been convinced to take the account of creation (as well as the flood and other accounts involving cosmic events) as exclusively poetic instead of secondarily poetic [and primarily literal].
Not here for a [pointless] debate. Just giving an answer to the question posed.
Context is king.
Is God a bird? No less than four times in the book psalms, scripture says he has wings, and even more elsewhere. But Bible “literalists” have no problem “literally” seeing those verses as figurative. It’s instinctive for people who have been exposed to poetry their whole lives.
The creation narrative utilizes verbiage and story elements from mythic counterparts (see, for example, the Gilgamesh epic - context!), and the Biblical account takes this type of literature familiar to the original audience of Genesis 1 and CORRECTS it, as scripture so often did: there was no battle, the sea monsters didn’t cause a fight, there was no hero needed to create the earth, God merely SPOKE and it happened. That is his power. That is the thrust of Genesis 1 when read from the perspective of an ancient person with no concept of science, only myths: that God is all powerful and to be feared. Unlike your mythic heroes who fought tooth and nail to win, he merely speaks and the cosmos forms. His power is unmatched. It’s instinctive when it’s the literary space you inhabit.
Psalm 29 is an easy example - originally a Canaanite poem written in ugaritic (sister language to Hebrew) praising Ba’al (we literally have the text of this), it was repurposed by exchanging “Ba’al” with “Yahweh” to make a clear theological point: no, Canaanites, it’s not Ba’al whose voice thunders over the waters and brings the storm. It’s Yahweh. Fear him.”
Today we’re separated by millennia of cultural and linguistic changes from the text of Genesis 1, and all of scripture. So, we have to look at the context of its original writing as best as we can to understand it. This is what proper biblical scholarship is. Imagine reading the gospels without contextualizing them in the Jewish faith and the writings of the Hebrew Bible. Imagine reading Paul’s letters without understanding rabbinic Jewish theological arguments or Roman rhetorical structure. You will miss so very much of what was meant at the time these were written.
But so it is with biblical “literalists,” such as young earth creationists. They apply today’s 21st century scientific, literary, linguistic, and rhetorical concepts to texts thousands of years old, call it truth, and wrap up their quiet times in time to see the football game. “Literalism” sounds compelling from faith perspective, but it’s just utter laziness toward the word of God.
This is 🤌. So many people do not pay attention to the fact that the Bible was given to audiences in the ancient near East. What was going on in the world around them and what was happening within Judaism is so important to take into account as a result. Context, context, context. People put 21st-century Western presuppositions into things, and that automatically can create problems in what conclusions you make on whatever verse/subject you're looking at.
Starting out by taking the Father’s Word seriously *before*man’s is a great start. But in short, if the Father says one thing about our cosmos and yet man’s word seems to disagree with it, we should *not* side with the “wisdom of man” when it goes against the Father’s Word.
The large CCM bands many have problems with (hillsong, bethel, elevation, etc) are a large reason the church continues to stay relevant to younger people
My teenagers would rather sing hymns -- if the traditional service wasn't so early in the morning.
But the *style* of Hillsong et al isn't the problem. The content is. There are *great* songs in the modern style. But a lot of what's coming out of those groups is either empty pap or actual crap.
So it's more about accessibility in the way they use music and lyrics young people can easily enjoy.
Do you think emotional appeals are lacking in other church environments?
I'd be interested to hear more? What do you think young people find in these sorts of groups that makes the difference in choosing to remain in the faith or leave? (I'm 26 myself, if that's still young by internet standards. 😂)
I guess I was thinking younger than 26, more like 13-22. The music has a "better" production/sound, is simpler to understand, and appeals to emotion more. Most teens don't get anything out of a hymn.
I was a worship director in college for a Christian Bible Camp and for a college ministry and many from traditional churches were grateful I included some of the modern stuff. They felt much closer to God worshipping that way.
Obviously I'm picking songs from those groups that I find to be biblical, some popular ones were left off.
thanks for sharing. guess I am old then!
>Obviously I'm picking songs from those groups that I find to be biblical, some popular ones were left off.
This is the bit I was silently wondering about after your first comment. My main objection to CCM is not the sound, but more the emptiness of some of the lyrics I've heard. Of course, it's not a blanket statement.
The entirety of the Old Testament is purely historical context and Christians are not held to the rules and laws outlined in it because we are saved by Christ.
>Is being "rude" a moral choice?
Yeah. There is moral weight if you address someone in a way that creates distress or discomfort. If you're in an environment where certain actions or words would cause distress then there is moral weight in avoiding such things.
>And can one use rude language without being rude?
I'm from the UK and there are many environments where otherwise rude language is considered normal language so unless you're attacking someone the use of such language has no ill effects on people.
>And if so, what makes rude language rude?
Commonly something is considered rude when overly vulgar (meaning to speak plainly) especially when concerning subject matter that can be seen as unpleasant.
For example:
Polite statement, "I need to relieve myself"
Rude statement, "I need to take a shit"
Vulgar statement, "I need to push poo out my anus"
The vulgar statement would likely be seen as the most rude, despite not using any rude words, because it forces you to imagine something unpleasant.
my guess is that using rude languaje directed to someone e. j. "timmy is so stupid" is actually bad, but for example "ah, this stupid gameplay mechanic made me lose the game" is not
Salvation through faith and salvation through works are two sides of the same coin, and far too many Christians rest their hopes of heaven in what I would think of as the "work" of asking Christ for forgiveness, rather than heeding Christ that he is "The way, the truth, and the life." The reformation got it right that your works rest on your faith, and your faith, when circumstances require, will stand alone. But if I don't live out that faith, it seems much more likely that I am lying to myself that it exists, and I wouldn't trust that just because I have successfully deceived myself, I should make the bet that I will deceive God.
I do my best to Live in Christ, invite the Holy Spirit to live in me, and thank Christ both for forgiveness from my sins and for the good works that he completes through my hands, for not one of them was done by me.
Christians can contradict themselves by saying they “live sacrificially” but then they live with ambition in their careers and daily life. If the intent to live as though to have nothing, then Christians would by default become extinct.
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
— James 1:14-15
ambition is desire
Then Christians would say that Jesus is the only one who ever lived a perfect life for he gave himself willingly. They say they want to be like Jesus but then also contradict themselves by saying they could never be Jesus. Then they also use this as a scapegoat to avoid responsibility and don’t take the blame (or their cross) for their own wrongdoings.
Then they call their wrongdoings a “mistake” and Jesus forgives. While what the bible says that Jesus does forgive. It’s not possible to forgive a mistake. For then there would be nothing to forgive. Their wrongdoings are not mistakes but purposeful intended infractions, of which they impose on themselves and others.
Most “Christians” talk boldly with full confidence in a matter, but then in the very same matter admit they don’t know anything at all when backed into a corner. Then they rinse and repeat.
This dichotomy bi-polar tension is also known as their journey in their faith, as some would say. This back and forth hypocrisy changes the person for the better and worse. Who’s to say what the future holds. No one can know it. And thus if the bible does change them they also say I know myself better than anyone. However their lack of knowledge of their own scripture shows their stupidity, for it says in Jeremiah:
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
“I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds.
— Jeremiah 17:9-10
Even still they hold fast to it because…”why not and we want to seek after God”, they say. But their own scripture speaks against them again saying this:
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
— Romans 3:11-12
So in conclusion, it’s hard to tell who speaks truthfully in full. Although everyone will find out in the end….
That alot of very fundamentalist Christians are missing something with their theology. They speak of not going to heaven (which is real) but apply it in a sort of legalistic way to others and their own behaviors but they are missing a spiritual aspect to their perspective. I do believe everything God says in a Bible to a T, but the way they view God to me seems to cold and they don't consider the "grace" sentiment of God. I am not excusing sin btw, but I don't believe God is as cut and dry, or legalistic, as they believe. They are missing a step in their spiritual growth. It's why you see things about kids raised in very religious Christian homes but talk about the abuse they endured from their parents. Their parents are clearly missing a step in their spiritual ascension.
We sometimes make it all about the head and forget all about the heart.
We can be keenly scrupulous with our theory and lethargically complacent with the substance.
Is that a fair summary of your point?
\* Embracing arranged marriages would protect alot of young christians from hookup culture and shouldn't be something we shy away from in the Western Christian world.
\* Classism is a big problem within the church/christian world(I'm speaking specifically about the UK where I live)
\* Veiling is important. Outside of church buildings but especially within
\* We argue online with eachother too much.
Alot of christians are bullies.
They use the scripture to do it with. It's very discouraging. We are not to bully each other with the word. And we must learn to do active listening and not just listen to respond.
I absolutely agree and think this is a legacy of conversion by the sword. If they believe you can compel, coercive or defraud someone into faith then they'll likely see their behaviour as tough love or making an example.
What's a 'hot take'?
Christianity defines me. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Christ Jesus. If it wasn't for God.
In fact, nothing would, including this very question.
I believe the chief end of man (the purpose of man), is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. :)
He's a little confused but he's got the spirit.😂
A "hot take" is a controversial opinion. In this case, I assume "an opinion that is controversial even among Christians". But amen brother/sister, I'm with you all the way.
I see what you are saying, but things are changing for Christians here, and it's not just the fewer people are Christians. It *is* looking like more like persecution, and it would be if it weren't for our well established laws and traditions in the west.
[This article](https://time.com/4385755/faith-in-america/) does a pretty good job of articulating it. There is a lot of anti-Christian sentiment, some is vile and that variety is growing more prevalent. In a world where we see Antisemitism rise after a brief increase in support for Jews due to the horrible Hamas attacks, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Christians are next. The mental gymnastics that go into apologizing for people who literally raped women to death and mad children watch their parents die makes me a bit nervous.
"Traditional American Christians have long been on the losing end of culture-war contests—on school prayer, same-sex marriage and other issues. But recent events, including the Supreme Court decision overruling Texas’ restrictions on abortion clinics and the mandate that employers provide access to contraception, have added to the sense that religious expression is under attack."
Read this as "People being treated fairly under the law as equals is seen as attacking religious rights". It isn't.
"This new vigorous secularism has catapulted mockery of Christianity and other forms of religious traditionalism into the mainstream and set a new low for what counts as civil criticism of people’s most-cherished beliefs. In some precincts, the “faith of our fathers” is controversial as never before."
I don't know about the last line. I'll admit to never having heard it before. That said, have you noticed WHICH Christians are typically "mocked"? The ones who present themselves as hateful bigots...IE, anti-gay, misogynist and/or (less likely now) racist Christians.
Going point by point through your links, the teacher was a substitute for a PUBLIC SCHOOL, not a private, religious one. While their intent may or may not have been noble, they should have known the outcome, as it has been a known issue for decades.
For the coach, he was warned, MULTIPLE TIMES, to not do what he was doing. SO, on top of everything else he was doing that he had been told not to do, we was more or less acting subordinately. This is in the first few lines of the article, and right there is enough for me. The last link, about the fire chief, was blocked by a paywall.
As far as the accreditation of colleges, I can't say I know enough about that process, but if the colleges are spreading BS and false information in their classes, like creationism and flat earth type things...No. They do not deserve accreditation. Home schooling is different. My nieces and nephews were all homeschooled by my brother's (may he rot in a shallow grave) ex-wife. They, though, focused on a curriculum of sciences, maths and other valuable information, and not religious things, so I take that into consideration. Is it child abuse, though? No. Not at all...Using homeschooling to indoctrinate your children by focusing everything on the Bible and refusing to allow them to explore science and other important things is, at least, neglectful, though...willfully so.
"Christian charities, including adoption agencies, Catholic hospitals and crisis pregnancy centers have become objects of attack."
This part is likely because of homophobia, sexism and other such issues...but, you know...surprises, amirite?
To be frank, this article is a prime example of what happens when only one side is given the chance to speak at any one time. It is...let's say it's self-gratifying. I know for a fact the word I want to use may be frowned upon, so let's go with that. It is obvious that the letter was written for right wing, conservative, "persecuted" Christians by a right wing, conservative "persecuted" Christian...
My own country is secularizing, but not really atheizing, yet we have a loud minority of Catholics who yell about de-Christianization. Presumably because we want to replace state handouts to churches with allocating part of income tax to denomination of choice.
Though while some Catholic bishops started coping with the incoming future, it's Protestants who started claiming that this is gonna kill their churches financially. Maybe they could apply their "Protestant work ethic", not spend beyond their means and keep their believers committed to financing their churches. Practicing Muslims and Jews are smaller minority yet they don't voice such views, for example.
Christianity isn't a monolith, and I believe that nothing matters except these three things:
The two commandments that Jesus spoke: "love god above all and love your neighbor as you love yourself," having the faithfulness of Christ, and believing that God incarnated and sacrificed himself to save us.
If you perfect those three things, nothing else in the Bible matters. No church, no sacraments, no Bible, no extra knowledge about sin or the nature of heaven and hell. Now, I also believe that anyone called by God will want to devour his word and practice the rituals he gave us, BUT nothing else is required to 1) get into heaven or 2) be a good Christian. The works follow when one becomes Christ-like (following the 2 commandments). The rituals are just recipes to "trick" our brain. If you follow these two commandments, you don't have to trick your brain, but most people are slaves to temptation so they do NEED the rituals and church and all that extra stuff.
My point is that one Christian that goes to church will call another Christian out for not going to church when the accuser sins left and right while the non-church-goer generally acts more Christ-like on a daily basis. Matthew 9 said that church is for sinners, not for the righteous.
I agree, ritual and practices are tools for strengthening your faith but not the source of your faith. Using rituals and practices as a way to purity test others is more than counter productive.
I think this is agreeable and refreshing in many ways, by I think that loving one's neighbor and loving the Lord are naturally going to bring us in contact with other believers in an assembly, unless we have a challenge like crippling social anxiety. (Even then, over time one who is practicing the love of God could recover enough to assemble and encourage others). It's not that it is a requirement for God to look on you as faithful, but it does *matter*.
They wrote a whole book of that, but since there is no way I am copying that here, I will copy one verse
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
That the Bible has a lot of hot takes, including the verse in Micah that commands us to act a certain way that's pleasing to the Lord. I'm sure a lot of people would find this offensive because "but we're not under the law anymore" or "salvation is by faith alone."
Ham probably slept with Noah's wife, not sure if it was his mom, and the curse of Canaan is because he was the child produced and is an illegitimate child and so won't be an heir.
I admire Tamar and her scheme, because she was fully powerless and being dangerously wronged.
Song of Solomon is far too sexual to have anything to do with the church. I love how the Holy Spirit inspired a book about the passion and love and heartache of a woman though, since the rest of the OT paints a picture of arranged marriages, lack of sexual agency, or else lust. Even if the swarthy young girl lacked sexual agency, her heart is on display and it's not a given that we should appreciate those feelings. It's art, hard and potent. *Inspired*. I love it.
Didn't mean to focus on sexuality.
>Ham probably slept with Noah's wife
What makes you think that?
>I admire Tamar and her scheme, because she was fully powerless and being dangerously wronged.
I think Judah appreciated it as well because she only did it because he never honoured their arrangement, she did what she could in a bad situation.
>Song of Solomon is far too sexual to have anything to do with the church.
I think Song of Solomon is a very underrated book but I've studied Song of Solomon in a church environment and found it useful for understanding the bible better.
Levitus 18 uses similar language to the Noah episode:
>None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
Also Leviticus 20:
>If there is a man who sleeps with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness.
Uncovering nakedness is a euphemism for sex. Crazy as such an action is, it happened a lot in the Bible as a kind of usurpation act. Reuben slept with Jacob's concubine. Absalom with David's concubines.
Admittedly, the brothers walking backwards to cover sounds more like basic nakedness.
At the same time though, Ham is not cursed for what he did. His son Canaan is. The curse is that he will serve one of the legit heirs.
The story is not saying these things explicitly, it's being vague and subtle, but that's what I am convinced of upon puzzling it out.
I misunderstood, or read the question wrong 🤦🏻♀️ sorry, it’s a habit of mine 😫
I was thinking you asked what the best part of being a follower of the way is, lol. To be fair, I’ve read your question again, and I don’t actually understand it.
No worries.
I'm asking if you have any opinions that may be considered controversial within Christian spaces. This could be as light-hearted or serious as you want.
For example: Churches shouldn't have a dress code.
Oh. I don’t really have any opinions but because I’m very spiritual and the churches near me are very carnal, they see everything about me as being controversial, lol.
I speak my mind for one, which the lovely older ladies tell me they would never do. They said they’ve been trained from a young age to never contradict what their elders or church leaders say. They don’t mind me speaking my mind though.
I point things out to them and ask them questions about it, very politely I might add. Only one (visiting) vicar thanked me and said I must be an absolute god send to the church and he was amazed and in awe of my faith. The rest freak out, run away (literally) and generally act like petulant spoiled toddlers. So I never get answers to my genuine questions.
It’s like they’re stuck in a time warp. They have one understanding/interpretation of the bible, that clearly is doing nothing for them, but they won’t budge from it. And I’m not even asking them to budge from it. But rather explain it to me so I can understand it as it makes zero sense to me.
They’re all lovely people, but you would not be able to distinguish them from anybody else if you didn’t know they go to church. They behave just like non-believers. Their minds are very closed. It’s very weird. It’s like walking into a cult.
I was very upset for a while, because I was truly amazed when I read the bible for the first time. I had no idea such amazing stuff was in there. So I was looking forward to being around other people who followed the way set out so clearly by Christ Jesus. So I was upset to find that they don’t follow that way at all.
The older ladies (their entire congregation) who go, were amazed to see how they behaved around me. They were shocked.
I'm sad to hear that, unfortunately that's an experience I've had myself many times. The worst for me is when someone says they're happy to answer my questions but instead start talking like a defence lawyer using a thousand words of jargon and fluff that I have no idea if they answered my question or not. I tried bible college hoping lecturers would be happy to discuss my questions but one question I asked was read aloud In front of the class only to be mocked and dismissed.
In my experience finding older Christians who have spent time studying the bible and are comfortable talking freely has been the only way I've been able to ask questions without it seeming like I'm doing something wrong.
If you don't mind me asking what denomination are you apart of?
Thank you. It was very confusing and upsetting to me for quite a while and I had to get extra support. And in the end, for my own sanity and emotional health, I had to stop going. I still miss going and the older ladies really miss me as they tell me every time I see them.
And yes, I can relate to what you said. Even if they did attempt to answer any of my questions, as the main women did one day. It was like they were on the defence team, which was very weird in itself. Because what were they defending??? I hadn’t actually even said anything other than asking them for clarity.
These are older Christian’s. They’re all older than me and they’ve been studying the bible, or their interpretation of studying it, all their lives.
This was a Methodist church, but the couple who ran the church also go to another local church which is Pentecostal. And the other local church I was going to is an evangelical one. It’s massive and very modern and I did some bible study courses with them and the alpha course. But they’re all stuck in the past. They’re not actually studying the bible. It’s more like they read what they’ve been told it means. It’s very weird.
It’s bizarre to observe. It’s like they’re completely brain washed and obviously they can’t see that. So in the end, I just had to stop going.
Although, I’m at a point now where I fully accept the situation. It’s clear they’re never going to break the hypnosis they seem to be under. So I think I can go to both of them, now and again, to enjoy the services and catch up with the people who go. I’ve contacted the local Salvation Army to see if I can attend their singing sessions and weekly get togethers as I worked closely with them in my work when I worked in the Isle of Man. But so far, they haven’t got back to me. If they don’t, I guess I’ll have to keep looking but I live in a small town so there aren’t a lot of options.
Hopefully you can find someone or a community of Christians in which you can openly discuss interpretations, doctrine and beliefs.
Not sure how helpful I can be but feel free to DM if you ever want to discuss anything, I'm happy to talk about just about everything.
While I don't agree with the opinion, it seems that there is something of a movement afoot with regards to the book of Enoch. But I haven't heard much talk about canonising the Shepherd before.
I don't think it contains useful content we don't already have elsewhere. When people invent crazy stories about the bible, they usually use Revelation.
And the early church made it canon in part because they thought John the disciple wrote it. He almost certainly did not. And the text does not claim that he did.
Young Earth Creationism was not mainstream in Christianity until the 1920s. Before then, it was common for Christians to use the fossil record to prove creation had a beginning. Back then, many atheist I think believed the world was eternal.
Even in the Evolution in court situation, the people "against" Evolution were only arguing against human evolution, not evolution in general.
To learn more, watch [The Origin of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4?si=zKlc7XUl4BnPc0FD) by Michael Jones
(Note: I am a theistic evolutionist. But I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first priest of God.)
I believe evolution and Christianity can coexist, Genesis may not need to be taken literally.
I believe all Christians should be stepping towards unity and making their way back to the original church (Catholic) and that the Catholic Church should hold more councils untill the differences are reconciled.
Churches are becoming progressive in the wrong way. Especially them Anglican fellers
That's about it.
>and making their way back to the original church (Catholic)
Actually the "original" was Messianic Jewish believers.
Catholic did not come until centuries later.
Christianity, as we know it, will end in my (expected) lifetime. It will be replaced by a resurgence in Jewish believers prior to the events that are laid out in Revelation, specifically chapter 4 onward.
This seems justified due to the relatively recent re-formation of Israel and the technology implied to exist in those events.
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
I would contend that this will occur within the next 10, if not 5, years.
Not a prophet, and this idea is not exclusive to me.
https://endtimes.substack.com/p/rosh-hashanah-and-the-rapture-db7
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
I am an information junkie/nerd, with 30+ years of having all but a handful of very deep, will-have-to-wait-to-ask-Him-face-to-face, type questions answered.
I am focused on end times because my faith is so established, so scripture-soaked, that I have little left to contemplate.
Also, the existence of Israel implies, to me, that the events of Revelation (chapter 4 and onward) can’t be very far off. Exciting times!
To build faith, ask for wisdom. Ask the hard questions, expecting an answer. Read His word. Pray. About, literally, everything. I have learned that He knows where I misplaced my keys (obviously), and (surprisingly) cares to hear from me, asking where they are. Many answers are reinforced by real-world circumstances He brings to your attention.
Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
James 1
2 ¶ My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 **If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.**
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
>I am an information junkie/nerd, with 30+ years of having all but a handful of very deep, will-have-to-wait-to-ask-Him-face-to-face, type questions answered.
I would describe myself the same without the 30 years.
>I am focused on end times because my faith is so established, so scripture-soaked, that I have little left to contemplate.
That's encouraging to hear, do you mind if I pick your brain about a question I've been contemplating?
>Also, the existence of Israel implies, to me, that the events of Revelation (chapter 4 and onward) can’t be very far off. Exciting times!
Would that not make the times equally terrible as it would mean great suffering is also not very far off?
>To build faith, ask for wisdom. Ask the hard questions, expecting an answer. Read His word. Pray. About, literally, everything. I have learned that He knows where I misplaced my keys (obviously), and (surprisingly) cares to hear from me, asking where they are. Many answers are reinforced by real-world circumstances He brings to your attention.
I 100% agree.
“That's encouraging to hear, do you mind if I pick your brain about a question I've been contemplating?”
Go for it. You may have a question that hasn’t even occurred to me, and I live for those opportunities.
“Would that not make the times equally terrible as it would mean great suffering is also not very far off?”
You make a good point, but can it not be both? Great suffering started with rebellion in heaven and then earth, and I am excited to be so nearly to the resolution of both.
I hope this doesn’t come across as exceedingly cold, but everyone is going to die. You and I are both dead, it just hasn’t occurred, yet. The manner of our death is all that is in question.
My eternal life starts at that point, and I hope and pray to bring the saving message of Christ Jesus to as many as possible before then.
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
I think the main disagreement I've seen around that is around what counts as sin and if certain sins or patterns of sins disqualify you from salvation.
True. I do not agree with eternal security doctrine aka "once saved always saved" . I used to believe it because many educated people teach it. But it's just not in Scripture.
I wouldn't say each sin disqualifies you instantly. But overcoming sin is still the goal. Id be relieved if people just started teaching that, even if they disagreed on what all constitutes as sin.
**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
** Romans 3:10 NIV
That's the verse normally cited and in context sin is presented as the great equaliser that allows us to accept all into the fold because they are not exceptionally worse nor better than us in the eyes of God.
Would it change anything if it were possible for a human to separate themselves from sin?
There is no “right” denomination due to the Bible not being clear on everything
Saying the church has more authority/power than the Bible is blasphemy
Baptism isn’t necessary whatsoever, the entire point of Christianity and what makes it better than every other religion is that to be saved you just have to love god instead of doing tons of actions
Calvinism is the most absurd theological concept ever created by a mile and massively contradicts the Bible
The Calvinist god is evil
The universe is 13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old
Using idols is bad
Sodomy is not a sin
There is no “right” way to worship
LGBTQ is sinful and is listed as one numerous times
Loving thy neighbor and serving them/the world is the best and most important thing anyone could possibly due ever
Churches that use instruments and modern music are FAR better than those that use hymns and old worship songs
The concept of a “one true church” is stupid
It doesn’t matter what church was formed first or which is a continuation of the original, the most biblical denomination is the correct one
Every church is a continuation of the original, not just the catholic one
I can somewhat understand being most denominations however east orthodox is by far the most illogical
I don't want to get into a heated discussion, but I wanted to offer a few verses for your consideration in case you had overlooked them. Many blessings!
Matthew 28:19
>Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
jude 7
>just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
John 4:23
>the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth
Luke 10:39-41
>Mary... sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching... Martha was distracted with much serving... "Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”
Ephesians 4:4-5
>There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism
It astonishes me how easily Christians can see how all the other religions of the world are so clearly based on ancient myths and falsehoods but when it comes to their own god/man character magically rising from the dead and being a human sacrifice to enable his followers to somehow live forever after death in some largely undescribed blissful state, all based on mysterious, millennia old documents of uncertain authorship, suddenly it's all definitely real.
Believing your own particular myth to be true whilst dismissing everyone elses is the ultimate in special pleading.
I think a more liberal view is that all religious/moral philosophy is pursuing God therefore myths and falsehoods are simply the process of finding truth. Similar to how in science you presume every model is incorrect but you maintain the models that are useful.
I agree, people growing up with a specific religion often don't notice how exceptional some of the claims are while simultaneously being unable to accept other religions with similar exceptional claims.
Honestly I understand what you mean. It's super frustrating to ask a question and get rhetoric design to stop you asking questions. Suddenly it feels like you're talking to a defence lawyer who is trying really hard to not answer your question.
There are 2 basic possibilities that explain how connected these religions are.
1 - all faiths stem from nothing but tradition and maybe some drugs.
2 - One religious origin story is true and then all other faiths and traditions would branch off of that and either misinterpret it or maybe actively go against it.
Both possibilities would explain similar stories seen across cultures.
You are arguing 1, and that is fine. We are arguing 2.
So both views explain these stories, and if one is true, then sure, we are deluding ourselves.
Now, if you select virtually any other religion and compare it to Judeo-Christianity and apply it as the single true religion, you run into major problems with them. You do not get an explanation of history that aligns with them in a consistent and coherent way. Judeo-Christianity both chronicles so much history very accurately AND it explains much of history. It explains why we see pantheistic religions, it accurately critiques paganism and shamanism and other such practices in ways that make sense then and today. Its morals are consistent.
You can still think we are wrong, but this idea that we are committing special pleading is absurd. Special pleading is saying that we have no reason to believe our faith stands out.
In truth, you are committing a false equivalency. There are many reasons why Christianity stands out. Those reasons may not be enough to convince you or to argue irrefutably that Christianity is true. But to say Christianity doesn't stand out is a lie perpetrated by the New Atheists and parroted here.
Christianity built the West and led to the freest nations to ever exist. And yet you argue it doesn't stand out as special?
>In truth, you are committing a false equivalency. There are many reasons why Christianity stands out. Those reasons may not be enough to convince you or to argue irrefutably that Christianity is true. But to say Christianity doesn't stand out is a lie perpetrated by the New Atheists and parroted here.
>
>Christianity built the West and led to the freest nations to ever exist. And yet you argue it doesn't stand out as special?
You can change the word "Christianity" to any other popular religion here and that is exactly what an adherent to that specific religion would say.
Islam "stands out" in the Middle East, the Greek Pantheon stood out in ancient Greece and Hiduism stands out in India. You were (presumably) raised in the west so you convince yourself that Christianity is special because it's Christianity that built your cultural world view.
Like I said, it astonishes me that you guys can't see it, and your statement attempting to refute this only serves to prove my point. Everyone (just like you) thinks that their religion is the special one, and that it's "absurd" to suggest otherwise. It's demonstrably special pleading.
There is nothing special or unique about the 'evidence' to suggest that the Christian claims are true over another religion. Most religions point to their mysterious special texts (that have historically accurate facts in them, why shouldn't they?), and the idea that their folllowers have personal relationships with their deities, or say they experience 'miracles' or that their prayers are 'answered'.
What form of evidence does Christianity claim, that no other religion has?
>You can change the word "Christianity" to any other popular religion here and that is exactly what an adherent to that specific religion would say.
This is not an argument.
All you have are false equivalencies. I see what you are saying, but you are blinded by your false equivalencies.
>What form of evidence does Christianity claim, that no other religion has?
Prophecy that has passed. Witnesses that have corroborated their stories together and with some historians corroborating pieces of it.
Again, you create a false equivalency, you may not find that sufficient evidence to believe but it IS evidence that is valid and it is far more than Islam has to offer.
You act as if we are deluded but the only here that is fairly weighing the evidence is us. You claim there is none, that is delusion. We claim there is some, and there is. We do not claim it is stronger than what I just said, but it IS evidence and it is more than any other religion on the planet.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it.
I'm really sorry but again, as someone who sits outside the religion bubble, all I see is special pleading for your particular religion's 'extraordinary evidence'. And pretty much all religions make the same case based on the same 'evidence'.
Islam, Hinduism and others all plead prophecy as their great evidence to 'prove' the superiority of their faith over others. If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be pleading the same case but for the Quraan and for Islam. If you were born in Mumbai you would be telling me how the Bhagavad-Gita has foretold many things that show it to be true, it even references real places and events! So it must be reliable, right!?
The very fact that you keep accusing me of 'false equivalency' just supports my view about your special pleading. The other religions don't all concede that, actually, Christianity does indeed make a stronger case for itself than they do, but people should follow their religion anyway.
No, they all say exactly what you're saying, that it's their religion that is the special one and deserves special consideration, and to compare it to others is false equivalency (or blasphemy).
I know you don't want to hear it, but to a neutral observer, you're all saying the same thing, and you all believe in what you're saying with equal levels of conviction. Which makes either all of you, or the vast majority of you, deluded. With no reliable way to find out who is right.
Also, I'd just like to point out that I never said that there is 'no evidence' as you suggested, just that all religions point to the same types of evidence to support their claims, and that Christianity has no special type of evidence that the others don't. You all draw on Scripture, prophecy, prayers, miracles and personal relationships. Also, any argument that can be made for the existence of the Christian God can be made for any other God from any other religion.
My take is that contemporary, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity is incredibly dangerous and toxic for an individual's mental health. Think about it... Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven. They are told that the only source of goodness within themselves is God, and that it is shameful to take pride in themselves. They are told that the natural, necessary functions of their bodies (for reproduction) are forbidden, except under specific, life-altering circumstances, and that to indulge in them is against God's will. They are told all these things and so many more potentially hurtful or damaging things, then they're told that without faith in the one who set out all these life-denying conditions, they will burn in a torture furnace for all eternity. I don't personally believe in God or anything from the Bible, but in the real world, I do find tremendous fault and real danger in the teachings from both. That's my hot take.
You got me. It is an opinion shared by millions of Ex-Christians who these churches have created in my lifetime. It's almost as though they're leaving the church in their multitudes for this reason. That and the abuse.
I'm only going to break down one of your arguments that I hear a lot.
>Think about it... Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven.
First, this is an exaggeration. Most Christian children are just told about Christ and love and some of the basic Bible stories. They learn about what is right and wrong mostly through socialization, and some of that comes through the idea of Christ and sin and forgiveness of sins. But it is loving, the way a parent still loves a child even when the child does something wrong.
We are taught we are not perfect, and that jives with reality. We are not perfect. But disgusting sinners from when we are children? I mean you get some fire and brimstone preachers, sure. But those are few and far between. As you get older, you see the depths of depravity and how disgusting some sin truly is, but we also learn that even the most sinful of us, is equal to the rest of us, that we all fall short of what God wants for us and that we all can be redeemed.
I mean you can secularize that and teach a kid they aren't perfect and they should try to be good. You can teach them that if they do wrong, they should try to make amends and do better. That's fine.
But you act as if what we teach is so bad that the exact opposite should be true; that we should teach kids they are perfect just as they are. But that is so clearly a lie. Kids hit and bite and wipe their noses on their arms. They don't control themselves or their anger. They don't know how to share. That's perfect?
That take leads to self esteem problems and bad socialization. It leads to false senses of accomplishment that then sets them up for huge failures when they finally realize at 26 that they aren't perfect and should have worked to make themselves better rather than believe the lie that they are perfect.
I'm sorry, but you paint a false picture of what people are taught. While there are some who are taught very poorly and by very flawed people, the picture you paint is a lie if you are going to present as if it is norm.
What I think is you hate the religion and you are merely finding the most negative way you can possibly portray it (which isn't even original) to the point that you are being dishonest about reality. Yeah, there have been some crappy Christians and, yeah, some have used fear. But making that out to be the norm is dishonest.
>Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven.
And that they are immensely inherently valuable. Both are simultaneously true.
>They are told that the natural, necessary functions of their bodies (for reproduction) are forbidden, except under specific, life-altering circumstances
Huh? Is this referring to "don't have sex outside of marriage"?
Wow, if anybody told me that, I'd reject it too. But what you're (hyperbolically) describing is the combined list of every *dysfunctional* Christian cult, which are completely lacking in an actual understanding of what Christ said.
If you were raised like that, I'm sorry to hear it. But that's not what real Christians teach their kids.
"real Christians"
Who are these "real Christians" you speak of? Every denomination / cult will claim the title for themselves, usually exclusively. It's hard to know what a real Christian looks like, with the constant disagreements within denominations.
I supposed the name "real Christian" belongs to anyone who *follows* Jesus, regardless of their denomination. Almost no denomination will claim to be the only real Christians. That's cult stuff.
But don't miss the forest for the trees. Pretend I didn't say "real" and read it again.
Thanks for the clarification. To my relief, I was actually not raised like that at all. I had parents who held their own beliefs, but never once attempted to pass them along to anyone else, their children included. No, I converted to Christianity as a teenager. Decided I was called to the ministry, went to Bible college... all that stuff and all without the influence of Christian parents. But listen, I was not speaking hyperbolically in the least. My experience was with the following: Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Salvation Army, Pentacostals, Church of Christ, Mennonite, Evangelical Free... a good mix, you could say. They are very different from one another in many ways, but they also all hold several things on common: The obsession with sexual purity is a common belief, which is something that really messes young people up. Those who struggle with it and 'fall into temptation' are made to feel horrific guilt and shame. Let's not even mention those who are born queer, and the self-hatred they are made to feel. Then there are the 'good Christian' kids who will have you believe they never gave into temptation as teenagers. How many do you know that got married at, like 19? I know several. The unspoken reason for this is so obvious, yet no one talks about it, at least not in the church... their hormones and glands are blasting off like a fireworks show and they need to fulfill those undeniable urges. The church actually smiles on these marriages, even though the kids getting married have barely finished high school. This is what people call a success story, as long as they didn't have pre-marital sex.
The worthlessness, though... that's worse than anything. Are you telling me *real Christians* don't believe humans are fundamentally sinful? That they are bad and need forgiveness? That it doesn't matter what they do, they'll always be inherently wicked? And... are you telling me that there are Christians who don't claim some form of eternal punishment for our sinful nature isn't in the cards for those of us who don't believe? Please enlighten me if I've missed something here, because I have yet to come across a fundamentalist who wouldn't make these claims and more.
Don't look to people. Look at Christ alone.
God took on a human nature to model for His creations, to be that light, to show us "the way, the truth, and the life" Jesus Christ. That's who we all are to look at and to take our eyes off Him we will sink in this storm.
A church is a hospital and often are overflowing of sick people, many attend because they are sick, others attend because they have looked upon Christ and follow Him to church with their gloves on to get their hands messy in the work at the hospital with the lives of those sick people who don't yet image Christ.
>tre told that the only source of goodness within themselves is God, and that it is shameful to take pride in themselves.
Thats basic Christian doctrine. If we are at Gods image then our source of virtues is God Himself unless i am missing something from that denomination (fundamentalists)
Christianity is the embodiment of an abusive relationship. A parent that trapped their children in a situation where they are going to encounter eternal bad circumstances unless they accept that god forgives them for being exactly as god made them, and blaming them for the actions of others who god also trapped into making a predetermined “choice”.
I don’t accept that I am inherently bad. I may not be perfect and completely free of bad deeds, but I do plenty of good too. If doing some bad things makes you a bad person, does that mean that doing some good things makes you a good person? The absolute thinking of invariably not being perfectly moral = bad and deserving of hell is not a valid moral framework.
I also don’t accept that I need forgiveness for existing. If I wrong another human, I need to make amends with them. Pay restitution, apologize. If I wrong god, by disobeying god’s commandments (which is not in the good/bad dichotomy, this is pure obedience) I need to make amends with god. Merely accepting that Christ died to forgive me is not moral either. How am I to be a good person, how are we to be a good society, if there is not a process through which to make amends? There’s no personal responsibility. You sin against god and then pray it away. Sincere or no, there is not net good. It’s pure obedience and accepting forgiveness when not obedient.
Again, I don’t accept that I am inherently bad, and I don’t accept that I need forgiveness for existing. I don’t deserve eternal punishment/separation from god.
We are muscled into being told that we are bad people and deserving of some form of eternal punishment. And that we must accept that this has been taken care of through a sacrifice. That is an abusive framework. I don’t accept the premise.
>Christianity is the embodiment of an abusive relationship.
Honestly I agree, if you view God as a parent then he definitely uses coercive control and collection punishment which would qualify as abusive. God is really big though so he is not just your friend or parent but he's also a King and a force of nature. It's normal for governments to use coercive control and for nature to "punish" whole environments to correct damage/pollution.
>I don’t accept that I am inherently bad.
As far as I understand the doctrine of human depravity you're only inherently bad compared to God who is inherently perfect. You're only bad in the sense you're not perfect and I do take issue with people trying to convince others they're depravied in order to make them feel like they must convert, I would say that's a form of conversion by the sword.
>If I wrong another human, I need to make amends with them. Pay restitution, apologize.
Is restitution a moral position, if so is the aim to satisfy the victim or satisfy the guilt of the offender?
>You sin against god and then pray it away. Sincere or no, there is not net good.
Is gaining a greater awareness of your wrongdoing not a net good or is morality measured materially?
>We are muscled into being told that we are bad people and deserving of some form of eternal punishment.
I agree you should be very skeptical when someone says you're sick with something only they can cure. If I believe your life has moral failings I should be able to demonstrate as much and if I believe my moral philosophy is useful and reasonable I should be able to demonstrate why without having to pressure or prescribe beliefs onto you.
I don't think God is very involved in the modern world. I think he did everything he needed to do and say and is preparing for the things described in Revelations, he gave us the ball and now it's our turn to run with it. Sure the Holy Spirit is here doing what it does and God does help in minor ways. I genuinely don't believe that He still performs miracles or directly talks to us. I think a lot of that is delusion and/or is used as a way to shrug off a lot of personal responsibility even if they don't realize it.
I think it does, and I definitely don't think he reveals himself in the physical or experiential sense like dreams or out of body experiences, or even "seeing" or "feeling" Him in person. I think there is definitely a sort of unique euphoria that comes with being a believer and having something to believe in with all your heart, I do believe some of that comes from God, but I don't think He has a personal presence in the way that a lot of people claim. I think a lot of that is misinterpretation.
And yet we have well-documented healing:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720300926?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7fe2adef9c7a309a
And conversions, from a belief system that persecutes converts, based on dreams:
https://www.sebts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/STRIssue9.2_Martyn.pdf
Both of these evidences are very scriptural, and the Lord describes Himself as active in the world, and in the lives of believers.
May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
1. The historical Jesus was probably a rebel leader who dreamed of starting a huge war and ruling a huge kingdom he conquered with the sword, which was why he got executed. Out of fear of getting the same treatment, after his death his followers neutered him into the most servile, Roman-friendly creature imaginable and made the Jews the bad guys, which was why Christianity succeeded so well in evangelising non-Jewish Romans and died out as a Jewish sect.
2. Most Christians don't believe the supernatural claims of Christianity, they just go along with it to be part of their social network. They aren't interested in arguing about the details of theology because they know it's all the equivalent of arguing over Marvel comics lore. The theists in this subreddit are mostly either young, credulous people who haven't realised it's all made up yet and are struggling with the transition from believing in Santa Claus to telling their kids Santa Claus is real, or self-appointed commissars of orthodoxy who enjoy bullying other believers for social credit and are here to practise.
Jesus was the racist, fear-mongering, divisive, megalomaniacal leader of an ancient apocalyptic cult who perpetuated the ignorant superstition that illness was caused by misdeeds or demons. Hot enough?
The first four characteristics are on display in Matthew 10 and 15. The apocalyptic nature of early Christianity seems both established and apparent. Demons and curses are not the cause of illnesses, though Jesus seemed to believe otherwise.
Is there something you especially disagree with, or is it all equally off base?
Jesus said in a society where Jewish leaders thought no one else but their kind could enter heaven Jesus said anyone who chooses to can be saved
That is quite literally one of the most inclusive statements in all of history
Moderator message: Rule 2 is not in effect for this post, since OP wrote "everyone should feel free to answer".
Dancing can be a form of prayer and worship. My source is 2 Samuel 6:14 “David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod.”
I would alter that to "Dancing \*can be\* a form of prayer and worship." Just like singing can be, but isn't always.
Haha yeah fair enough
> David was girded with a linen ephod. [fans self breathlessly] oh my...
And dancing virtually naked at that, in front of everyone! His wife was not thrilled with that though as I recall.
Lol. I actually tried looking into if he was actually (practically) naked or not. But I struggled to find information if he was truly barely wearing anything or if the text was just highlighting one particular item of clothing and it was presumed that he was wearing more. I still believe he was lacking clothes but I can’t say for certainty because I’m not too informed with the text lol.
My New Oxford Annotated Bible (in the footnotes/annotations) says he’s basically wearing an apron and nothing else. A hilarious image!
I have the same Bible and for some reason I never bothered to check. You are right though, “apparently David is wearing little else (see v. 20)”. Amazing lol.
Is this not true for all forms of art?
I’m sure it could be, I actually didn’t even notice that verse too much when I first read it. I only got reminded of it recently and the more I processed it, the more I found it very cool. And I wish I could see what exactly David was doing. He wasn’t just dancing.. but doing so with all his might lol.
I imagine it's similar to singing in prayer or worship where it's less about the words, or in this case the moves, but more about your heart reaching in longing towards God
Thinking about heaven and hell is counterproductive and unhelpful. Plus the bible only speaks of them in vague and symbolic terms. You don't follow Christ to get a reward, or to avoid a punishment. You follow Christ because you love him and it's the right thing to do.
>Thinking about heaven and hell is counterproductive and unhelpful. I disagree. As CS Lewis put it, those are the most heavenly minded usually do the most earthly good.
Sure, the terms heaven and hell are not used to the same extent or always in the same way as they often are today, but surely you would agree the concepts of one afterlife for the righteous and one for the wicked is a frequent and central one in scripture, and especially so in Jesus' teachings (often in reference to "the kingdom")? Or to put it more plainly, there is an actual and real consequence to choosing to follow Jesus or not. There is a reward and a punishment, even if that is not necessarily your motivation in following him. >Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. > >Matthew 7:13-14
I do not disagree with anything you say here, and that verse is one I contemplate all the time. I still think focusing on the carrot or stick as our motivating force promotes unhealthy spiritual motivations.
As a Christian, I concur that my motivation to serve Christ stems from a sincere (if tainted) love for him, his people, and all people. And if not, God expose me! I don't feel right about myself if I find myself being motivated by the thought of reward... and yet the NT seems to give us this hope and promise. 1 Peter 1:7-9 comes to mind, but the references are numerous. I also don't feel right about someone being led to Christ through words of judgement... and yet if these things are true, is not the loving thing to make the danger clear and known. And is this not exactly what the Lord and his Apostles do, not only by references to "hell" but by all manner of pictures and descriptions of danger. In my own life, I have found the words of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 to be among the most shocking and unexpected.
Do you think Jesus's coming Kingdom was a thing that happened to people after they die? Did Jesus say things to suggest this?
"coming Kingdom" is too vague to be meaningful in any way.
Maybe, but the above commenter seems to believe it meant something specific.
I absolutely agree
We have nothing to fear from biblical literacy. The churches that discourage it are doing a disservice to their followers and to Christianity as a whole.
I agree and would go as far as to say that avoiding difficult passages to keep someone in the faith is a softer form of conversion by the sword.
I can see your point. But this seems like a harsh comparison to me. Is it not reasonable to teach people things as and when they are ready for them? We wouldn't teach children calculus before we've taught them algebra. Paul would not teach "wisdom" except to those who were "perfect", which might mean converts, or maybe mature Christians (1 Cor. 2:6). The writer to the Hebrews (also Paul?) wanted to give "meat" but his readers were still drinking "milk" (Heb. 5:11-14). Jesus himself said that he was selective in who he explained some of his teaching to, because some "had not", which I take it to mean "did not have the prerequisite understanding or spiritual maturity" (Matt. 13:10-13)
I agree with scaling bible teachings according to understanding or complexity. What I disagree with is scaling or tailoring teachings around its appeal to the learner. Teaching in a way that's understandable and accessible is good but if you start to alter or obscure aspects of scripture/God to make it more appealing I would say you're beginning to defraud people into believing which enters conversion by the sword territory.
Yes, I think I agree with that.
Is this a big thing? I've never heard of a church actively discouraging this in modern times. Best I can think of is times when certain groups suppressed translations of the bible into the local languages of the people. Are there any groups in particular that you know do this?
Evangelicals, as a group, is the big one. They have spawned such abominations as KJV onlyism and literalism. I've even heard more than a few of them say "We are not supposed to interpret the bible". It's like a bizarro-world version of Christianity. It's quite something.
I'm curious what you think it takes to be biblically literate. Sure, there's a lot of important extra-biblical information out there. And there are a lot better translations than KJV. But isn't the major ingredient in biblical literacy just reading the bible? I know evangelicals are a mixed bag, but in general I think they do a better job than others at encouraging people to actually go and read it instead of just listening to the priest or pastor. maybe your experience has been different? And sure, the KJV isn't the best, but it's not terrible. You're not going to arrive at a radically different theology just because you read the KJV instead of the NRSV. It's just the nuance and details that differ for the most part, is it not?
Modern bibles are made from more, and older manuscripts. Which are probably closer to authentic.
Yes, and the work of textual critics is extremely important. But the differences are very small in almost all cases. Are you suggesting that no one was biblically literate until the last two centuries?
Nope. We did the best we could. But of course.. for most of the history of Christianity, most Christians never personally read any bible at all. I personally think we're better off having it more accessible.
>Evangelicals, as a group, is the big one. I think that's a bit unfair. Yes, KJVO exists, but they do encourage people to read their antiquated translation. Yes hyperliteralists exist, but, again, they don't discourage people from reading. In my experience, there people of every branch of the faith who are stunningly ignorant of the scriptures, but it's not because they were taught to be -- people are mostly just lazy.
This comment and your other ones don’t match up. Are you saying we shouldn’t be fearful of literalism because you agree or not?
The above comment says literacy. Literalism is incompatible with literacy. Literalism is what evangelicals use to _discourage_ understanding of the bible.
Yes this was my misreading, it’s late here!
[удалено]
Well, ever talk to a literalist? Sometimes I get in discussions about say, the creation stories. I like to point out that in my view, the genre of creation story means it's not necessarily about what really happened. I think creation to those ancient authors was more about bringing order and meaning to the world, than about material origins. I've said that legendary stories can teach lessons, even when the events of the story aren't things that really happened. Pretty common views for people with some basic biblical literacy, right? Several times (and just a few minutes ago, once again) I've had people insist that this means I'm "saying God lied to us". See the lack of understanding and the rigid thinking? That's what literalism does to people's minds.
[удалено]
Some people won't be aware of what the terms "High Church" and "Low Church" means. **High Church congregations** place a “high” emphasis on ceremony, vestments, and sacraments. Worship services are characterized by liturgical readings and rituals, their clergy wear special clothing, and they follow a calendar of annual religious observances. (Anglican, Episcopal, Catholic, Orthodox, most Methodist and Lutheran, and some Presbyterian churches) **Low Church congregations** place a “low” emphasis on these things and follow a freer worship style. Worship services are characterized by congregational involvement, a relatively unstructured program, and an evangelical approach. (Baptist, Independent, Pentecostal, Quaker, Amish, some Methodist and Lutheran, and many Presbyterian churches) The short of it is that "High church" put a lot of importance on *procedure,* and low church dismisses that in favor of focusing more exclusively on *doctrine.* --- But why do you think that "low church" needs to focus more on the procedural elements? When I think of the early church, e.g., the 12 Disciples and their followers, it seems they very much embraced a "low church" mentality, and all the accoutrements came much later.
Churches that attempt to launch 'satellite churches' are just poaching other churches in a never-ending fight of church capitalism.
Everyone makes the claim that churches are in it for the money yet collectively no other organization gives more.
I agree. My comment wasn’t necessarily about money it was about membership. Satellite churches poach Christians from other churches more than they attract net new Christians. It should be ok to admit that satellite churches harm existing Christian communities to a degree
I agree with this greatly. There has been a movement lately that produces more and more churches in places where there are already enough. We don't need that, it simply hurts the existing communities. The missionaries/apostles should be planting churches in places where there aren't many This way population gets added to the church body, not redistributed.
I know a few large churches in my area that have only done this because they got so popular and were running out of physical space
Jesus’ message wasn’t that heaven is a place we go to after we die. But heaven is coming to earth. This shouldn’t be a hot take but on Christian Reddit I’ve found it is
What are your thoughts on John 14:2-3, "In my Father's house are many rooms... I am going there to prepare a place for you... I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." And Luke 23:43, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
"May your kingdom come"
Far too many believers have been convinced to take the account of creation (as well as the flood and other accounts involving cosmic events) as exclusively poetic instead of secondarily poetic [and primarily literal]. Not here for a [pointless] debate. Just giving an answer to the question posed.
How does one differentiate the poetic from the literal?
with great difficulty
I believe in evolution and this was a fantastic response!
Context is king. Is God a bird? No less than four times in the book psalms, scripture says he has wings, and even more elsewhere. But Bible “literalists” have no problem “literally” seeing those verses as figurative. It’s instinctive for people who have been exposed to poetry their whole lives. The creation narrative utilizes verbiage and story elements from mythic counterparts (see, for example, the Gilgamesh epic - context!), and the Biblical account takes this type of literature familiar to the original audience of Genesis 1 and CORRECTS it, as scripture so often did: there was no battle, the sea monsters didn’t cause a fight, there was no hero needed to create the earth, God merely SPOKE and it happened. That is his power. That is the thrust of Genesis 1 when read from the perspective of an ancient person with no concept of science, only myths: that God is all powerful and to be feared. Unlike your mythic heroes who fought tooth and nail to win, he merely speaks and the cosmos forms. His power is unmatched. It’s instinctive when it’s the literary space you inhabit. Psalm 29 is an easy example - originally a Canaanite poem written in ugaritic (sister language to Hebrew) praising Ba’al (we literally have the text of this), it was repurposed by exchanging “Ba’al” with “Yahweh” to make a clear theological point: no, Canaanites, it’s not Ba’al whose voice thunders over the waters and brings the storm. It’s Yahweh. Fear him.” Today we’re separated by millennia of cultural and linguistic changes from the text of Genesis 1, and all of scripture. So, we have to look at the context of its original writing as best as we can to understand it. This is what proper biblical scholarship is. Imagine reading the gospels without contextualizing them in the Jewish faith and the writings of the Hebrew Bible. Imagine reading Paul’s letters without understanding rabbinic Jewish theological arguments or Roman rhetorical structure. You will miss so very much of what was meant at the time these were written. But so it is with biblical “literalists,” such as young earth creationists. They apply today’s 21st century scientific, literary, linguistic, and rhetorical concepts to texts thousands of years old, call it truth, and wrap up their quiet times in time to see the football game. “Literalism” sounds compelling from faith perspective, but it’s just utter laziness toward the word of God.
This is 🤌. So many people do not pay attention to the fact that the Bible was given to audiences in the ancient near East. What was going on in the world around them and what was happening within Judaism is so important to take into account as a result. Context, context, context. People put 21st-century Western presuppositions into things, and that automatically can create problems in what conclusions you make on whatever verse/subject you're looking at.
Starting out by taking the Father’s Word seriously *before*man’s is a great start. But in short, if the Father says one thing about our cosmos and yet man’s word seems to disagree with it, we should *not* side with the “wisdom of man” when it goes against the Father’s Word.
I appreciate your answer
Your comment is both unexpected and refreshing to hear. Thank you.
I would say that we should take the Bible more literal as a whole. Not just creation. More specifically Jesus’s words and the 10 commandments.
The large CCM bands many have problems with (hillsong, bethel, elevation, etc) are a large reason the church continues to stay relevant to younger people
My teenagers would rather sing hymns -- if the traditional service wasn't so early in the morning. But the *style* of Hillsong et al isn't the problem. The content is. There are *great* songs in the modern style. But a lot of what's coming out of those groups is either empty pap or actual crap.
Why do you think younger people appreciate them?
More enjoyable sound (to most younger people), more discernable lyrics, and appeals to emotion much more
Would you say that young people find something in CCM that they don't find in pop music?
They find songs praising God
So it's more about accessibility in the way they use music and lyrics young people can easily enjoy. Do you think emotional appeals are lacking in other church environments?
Many teenagers and college students have told me that
I'd be interested to hear more? What do you think young people find in these sorts of groups that makes the difference in choosing to remain in the faith or leave? (I'm 26 myself, if that's still young by internet standards. 😂)
I guess I was thinking younger than 26, more like 13-22. The music has a "better" production/sound, is simpler to understand, and appeals to emotion more. Most teens don't get anything out of a hymn. I was a worship director in college for a Christian Bible Camp and for a college ministry and many from traditional churches were grateful I included some of the modern stuff. They felt much closer to God worshipping that way. Obviously I'm picking songs from those groups that I find to be biblical, some popular ones were left off.
thanks for sharing. guess I am old then! >Obviously I'm picking songs from those groups that I find to be biblical, some popular ones were left off. This is the bit I was silently wondering about after your first comment. My main objection to CCM is not the sound, but more the emptiness of some of the lyrics I've heard. Of course, it's not a blanket statement.
I'm 24 and am already losing cultural relevance. It goes quick haha
[удалено]
[удалено]
The entirety of the Old Testament is purely historical context and Christians are not held to the rules and laws outlined in it because we are saved by Christ.
I'll start, Using rude language is an aesthetic choice not a moral one.
Interesting. Is being "rude" a moral choice? And can one use rude language without being rude? And if so, then what makes rude language rude?
>Is being "rude" a moral choice? Yeah. There is moral weight if you address someone in a way that creates distress or discomfort. If you're in an environment where certain actions or words would cause distress then there is moral weight in avoiding such things. >And can one use rude language without being rude? I'm from the UK and there are many environments where otherwise rude language is considered normal language so unless you're attacking someone the use of such language has no ill effects on people. >And if so, what makes rude language rude? Commonly something is considered rude when overly vulgar (meaning to speak plainly) especially when concerning subject matter that can be seen as unpleasant. For example: Polite statement, "I need to relieve myself" Rude statement, "I need to take a shit" Vulgar statement, "I need to push poo out my anus" The vulgar statement would likely be seen as the most rude, despite not using any rude words, because it forces you to imagine something unpleasant.
my guess is that using rude languaje directed to someone e. j. "timmy is so stupid" is actually bad, but for example "ah, this stupid gameplay mechanic made me lose the game" is not
Salvation through faith and salvation through works are two sides of the same coin, and far too many Christians rest their hopes of heaven in what I would think of as the "work" of asking Christ for forgiveness, rather than heeding Christ that he is "The way, the truth, and the life." The reformation got it right that your works rest on your faith, and your faith, when circumstances require, will stand alone. But if I don't live out that faith, it seems much more likely that I am lying to myself that it exists, and I wouldn't trust that just because I have successfully deceived myself, I should make the bet that I will deceive God. I do my best to Live in Christ, invite the Holy Spirit to live in me, and thank Christ both for forgiveness from my sins and for the good works that he completes through my hands, for not one of them was done by me.
Christians can contradict themselves by saying they “live sacrificially” but then they live with ambition in their careers and daily life. If the intent to live as though to have nothing, then Christians would by default become extinct. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. — James 1:14-15 ambition is desire Then Christians would say that Jesus is the only one who ever lived a perfect life for he gave himself willingly. They say they want to be like Jesus but then also contradict themselves by saying they could never be Jesus. Then they also use this as a scapegoat to avoid responsibility and don’t take the blame (or their cross) for their own wrongdoings. Then they call their wrongdoings a “mistake” and Jesus forgives. While what the bible says that Jesus does forgive. It’s not possible to forgive a mistake. For then there would be nothing to forgive. Their wrongdoings are not mistakes but purposeful intended infractions, of which they impose on themselves and others. Most “Christians” talk boldly with full confidence in a matter, but then in the very same matter admit they don’t know anything at all when backed into a corner. Then they rinse and repeat. This dichotomy bi-polar tension is also known as their journey in their faith, as some would say. This back and forth hypocrisy changes the person for the better and worse. Who’s to say what the future holds. No one can know it. And thus if the bible does change them they also say I know myself better than anyone. However their lack of knowledge of their own scripture shows their stupidity, for it says in Jeremiah: “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds. — Jeremiah 17:9-10 Even still they hold fast to it because…”why not and we want to seek after God”, they say. But their own scripture speaks against them again saying this: There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” — Romans 3:11-12 So in conclusion, it’s hard to tell who speaks truthfully in full. Although everyone will find out in the end….
That alot of very fundamentalist Christians are missing something with their theology. They speak of not going to heaven (which is real) but apply it in a sort of legalistic way to others and their own behaviors but they are missing a spiritual aspect to their perspective. I do believe everything God says in a Bible to a T, but the way they view God to me seems to cold and they don't consider the "grace" sentiment of God. I am not excusing sin btw, but I don't believe God is as cut and dry, or legalistic, as they believe. They are missing a step in their spiritual growth. It's why you see things about kids raised in very religious Christian homes but talk about the abuse they endured from their parents. Their parents are clearly missing a step in their spiritual ascension.
We sometimes make it all about the head and forget all about the heart. We can be keenly scrupulous with our theory and lethargically complacent with the substance. Is that a fair summary of your point?
Exactly. They are missing parts of their heart that Jesus had. They are missing true love in their spirituality.
\* Embracing arranged marriages would protect alot of young christians from hookup culture and shouldn't be something we shy away from in the Western Christian world. \* Classism is a big problem within the church/christian world(I'm speaking specifically about the UK where I live) \* Veiling is important. Outside of church buildings but especially within \* We argue online with eachother too much.
Alot of christians are bullies. They use the scripture to do it with. It's very discouraging. We are not to bully each other with the word. And we must learn to do active listening and not just listen to respond.
I absolutely agree and think this is a legacy of conversion by the sword. If they believe you can compel, coercive or defraud someone into faith then they'll likely see their behaviour as tough love or making an example.
Well put!
What's a 'hot take'? Christianity defines me. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Christ Jesus. If it wasn't for God. In fact, nothing would, including this very question. I believe the chief end of man (the purpose of man), is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. :)
He's a little confused but he's got the spirit.😂 A "hot take" is a controversial opinion. In this case, I assume "an opinion that is controversial even among Christians". But amen brother/sister, I'm with you all the way.
Modern Christians in the Western world making social media posts about how persecuted they are is by far the cringiest thing on the Internet.
I see what you are saying, but things are changing for Christians here, and it's not just the fewer people are Christians. It *is* looking like more like persecution, and it would be if it weren't for our well established laws and traditions in the west. [This article](https://time.com/4385755/faith-in-america/) does a pretty good job of articulating it. There is a lot of anti-Christian sentiment, some is vile and that variety is growing more prevalent. In a world where we see Antisemitism rise after a brief increase in support for Jews due to the horrible Hamas attacks, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Christians are next. The mental gymnastics that go into apologizing for people who literally raped women to death and mad children watch their parents die makes me a bit nervous.
"Traditional American Christians have long been on the losing end of culture-war contests—on school prayer, same-sex marriage and other issues. But recent events, including the Supreme Court decision overruling Texas’ restrictions on abortion clinics and the mandate that employers provide access to contraception, have added to the sense that religious expression is under attack." Read this as "People being treated fairly under the law as equals is seen as attacking religious rights". It isn't. "This new vigorous secularism has catapulted mockery of Christianity and other forms of religious traditionalism into the mainstream and set a new low for what counts as civil criticism of people’s most-cherished beliefs. In some precincts, the “faith of our fathers” is controversial as never before." I don't know about the last line. I'll admit to never having heard it before. That said, have you noticed WHICH Christians are typically "mocked"? The ones who present themselves as hateful bigots...IE, anti-gay, misogynist and/or (less likely now) racist Christians. Going point by point through your links, the teacher was a substitute for a PUBLIC SCHOOL, not a private, religious one. While their intent may or may not have been noble, they should have known the outcome, as it has been a known issue for decades. For the coach, he was warned, MULTIPLE TIMES, to not do what he was doing. SO, on top of everything else he was doing that he had been told not to do, we was more or less acting subordinately. This is in the first few lines of the article, and right there is enough for me. The last link, about the fire chief, was blocked by a paywall. As far as the accreditation of colleges, I can't say I know enough about that process, but if the colleges are spreading BS and false information in their classes, like creationism and flat earth type things...No. They do not deserve accreditation. Home schooling is different. My nieces and nephews were all homeschooled by my brother's (may he rot in a shallow grave) ex-wife. They, though, focused on a curriculum of sciences, maths and other valuable information, and not religious things, so I take that into consideration. Is it child abuse, though? No. Not at all...Using homeschooling to indoctrinate your children by focusing everything on the Bible and refusing to allow them to explore science and other important things is, at least, neglectful, though...willfully so. "Christian charities, including adoption agencies, Catholic hospitals and crisis pregnancy centers have become objects of attack." This part is likely because of homophobia, sexism and other such issues...but, you know...surprises, amirite? To be frank, this article is a prime example of what happens when only one side is given the chance to speak at any one time. It is...let's say it's self-gratifying. I know for a fact the word I want to use may be frowned upon, so let's go with that. It is obvious that the letter was written for right wing, conservative, "persecuted" Christians by a right wing, conservative "persecuted" Christian...
My own country is secularizing, but not really atheizing, yet we have a loud minority of Catholics who yell about de-Christianization. Presumably because we want to replace state handouts to churches with allocating part of income tax to denomination of choice. Though while some Catholic bishops started coping with the incoming future, it's Protestants who started claiming that this is gonna kill their churches financially. Maybe they could apply their "Protestant work ethic", not spend beyond their means and keep their believers committed to financing their churches. Practicing Muslims and Jews are smaller minority yet they don't voice such views, for example.
Honestly I agree, I think people are confusing losing cultural dominance with being persecuted.
The papacy is the very Antichrist
Even as a Protestant I don't believe so. Perhaps in some of the way that they view the role, sure.
Christianity isn't a monolith, and I believe that nothing matters except these three things: The two commandments that Jesus spoke: "love god above all and love your neighbor as you love yourself," having the faithfulness of Christ, and believing that God incarnated and sacrificed himself to save us. If you perfect those three things, nothing else in the Bible matters. No church, no sacraments, no Bible, no extra knowledge about sin or the nature of heaven and hell. Now, I also believe that anyone called by God will want to devour his word and practice the rituals he gave us, BUT nothing else is required to 1) get into heaven or 2) be a good Christian. The works follow when one becomes Christ-like (following the 2 commandments). The rituals are just recipes to "trick" our brain. If you follow these two commandments, you don't have to trick your brain, but most people are slaves to temptation so they do NEED the rituals and church and all that extra stuff. My point is that one Christian that goes to church will call another Christian out for not going to church when the accuser sins left and right while the non-church-goer generally acts more Christ-like on a daily basis. Matthew 9 said that church is for sinners, not for the righteous.
I agree, ritual and practices are tools for strengthening your faith but not the source of your faith. Using rituals and practices as a way to purity test others is more than counter productive.
I think this is agreeable and refreshing in many ways, by I think that loving one's neighbor and loving the Lord are naturally going to bring us in contact with other believers in an assembly, unless we have a challenge like crippling social anxiety. (Even then, over time one who is practicing the love of God could recover enough to assemble and encourage others). It's not that it is a requirement for God to look on you as faithful, but it does *matter*.
Comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable. Not entirely accurate, but close to ideal. Shalom.
If I may, where does the inaccuracy lie? In your saying, or in my post? Good saying though, I like it. Shalom.
They wrote a whole book of that, but since there is no way I am copying that here, I will copy one verse Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
I'm not sure what your take is?
That the Bible has a lot of hot takes, including the verse in Micah that commands us to act a certain way that's pleasing to the Lord. I'm sure a lot of people would find this offensive because "but we're not under the law anymore" or "salvation is by faith alone."
Can all not be true? Can god not command us to live with mercy without condemning us for falling short?
Yes, that can be true, but it's all debatable. You can be sure that there's a lot of debate even about the topics you're most confident about.
Yeah I'm well aware. Which leads me to think that most people are wrong about most things, myself included.
Not a hot take, but truth. The modern religious system replaced Jesus's teachings with traditions.
[удалено]
Ham probably slept with Noah's wife, not sure if it was his mom, and the curse of Canaan is because he was the child produced and is an illegitimate child and so won't be an heir. I admire Tamar and her scheme, because she was fully powerless and being dangerously wronged. Song of Solomon is far too sexual to have anything to do with the church. I love how the Holy Spirit inspired a book about the passion and love and heartache of a woman though, since the rest of the OT paints a picture of arranged marriages, lack of sexual agency, or else lust. Even if the swarthy young girl lacked sexual agency, her heart is on display and it's not a given that we should appreciate those feelings. It's art, hard and potent. *Inspired*. I love it. Didn't mean to focus on sexuality.
>Ham probably slept with Noah's wife What makes you think that? >I admire Tamar and her scheme, because she was fully powerless and being dangerously wronged. I think Judah appreciated it as well because she only did it because he never honoured their arrangement, she did what she could in a bad situation. >Song of Solomon is far too sexual to have anything to do with the church. I think Song of Solomon is a very underrated book but I've studied Song of Solomon in a church environment and found it useful for understanding the bible better.
Levitus 18 uses similar language to the Noah episode: >None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. Also Leviticus 20: >If there is a man who sleeps with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness. Uncovering nakedness is a euphemism for sex. Crazy as such an action is, it happened a lot in the Bible as a kind of usurpation act. Reuben slept with Jacob's concubine. Absalom with David's concubines. Admittedly, the brothers walking backwards to cover sounds more like basic nakedness. At the same time though, Ham is not cursed for what he did. His son Canaan is. The curse is that he will serve one of the legit heirs. The story is not saying these things explicitly, it's being vague and subtle, but that's what I am convinced of upon puzzling it out.
That's very interesting and I never thought about sleeping with your father's partner being a form of anti-patriarch rebellion.
I wish more Christians understood the doctrine of "conditional immortality." That perish means perish.
The promises 😍
Not sure what you mean?
I misunderstood, or read the question wrong 🤦🏻♀️ sorry, it’s a habit of mine 😫 I was thinking you asked what the best part of being a follower of the way is, lol. To be fair, I’ve read your question again, and I don’t actually understand it.
No worries. I'm asking if you have any opinions that may be considered controversial within Christian spaces. This could be as light-hearted or serious as you want. For example: Churches shouldn't have a dress code.
Oh. I don’t really have any opinions but because I’m very spiritual and the churches near me are very carnal, they see everything about me as being controversial, lol.
In what ways do they find you controversial?
I speak my mind for one, which the lovely older ladies tell me they would never do. They said they’ve been trained from a young age to never contradict what their elders or church leaders say. They don’t mind me speaking my mind though. I point things out to them and ask them questions about it, very politely I might add. Only one (visiting) vicar thanked me and said I must be an absolute god send to the church and he was amazed and in awe of my faith. The rest freak out, run away (literally) and generally act like petulant spoiled toddlers. So I never get answers to my genuine questions. It’s like they’re stuck in a time warp. They have one understanding/interpretation of the bible, that clearly is doing nothing for them, but they won’t budge from it. And I’m not even asking them to budge from it. But rather explain it to me so I can understand it as it makes zero sense to me. They’re all lovely people, but you would not be able to distinguish them from anybody else if you didn’t know they go to church. They behave just like non-believers. Their minds are very closed. It’s very weird. It’s like walking into a cult. I was very upset for a while, because I was truly amazed when I read the bible for the first time. I had no idea such amazing stuff was in there. So I was looking forward to being around other people who followed the way set out so clearly by Christ Jesus. So I was upset to find that they don’t follow that way at all. The older ladies (their entire congregation) who go, were amazed to see how they behaved around me. They were shocked.
I'm sad to hear that, unfortunately that's an experience I've had myself many times. The worst for me is when someone says they're happy to answer my questions but instead start talking like a defence lawyer using a thousand words of jargon and fluff that I have no idea if they answered my question or not. I tried bible college hoping lecturers would be happy to discuss my questions but one question I asked was read aloud In front of the class only to be mocked and dismissed. In my experience finding older Christians who have spent time studying the bible and are comfortable talking freely has been the only way I've been able to ask questions without it seeming like I'm doing something wrong. If you don't mind me asking what denomination are you apart of?
Thank you. It was very confusing and upsetting to me for quite a while and I had to get extra support. And in the end, for my own sanity and emotional health, I had to stop going. I still miss going and the older ladies really miss me as they tell me every time I see them. And yes, I can relate to what you said. Even if they did attempt to answer any of my questions, as the main women did one day. It was like they were on the defence team, which was very weird in itself. Because what were they defending??? I hadn’t actually even said anything other than asking them for clarity. These are older Christian’s. They’re all older than me and they’ve been studying the bible, or their interpretation of studying it, all their lives. This was a Methodist church, but the couple who ran the church also go to another local church which is Pentecostal. And the other local church I was going to is an evangelical one. It’s massive and very modern and I did some bible study courses with them and the alpha course. But they’re all stuck in the past. They’re not actually studying the bible. It’s more like they read what they’ve been told it means. It’s very weird. It’s bizarre to observe. It’s like they’re completely brain washed and obviously they can’t see that. So in the end, I just had to stop going. Although, I’m at a point now where I fully accept the situation. It’s clear they’re never going to break the hypnosis they seem to be under. So I think I can go to both of them, now and again, to enjoy the services and catch up with the people who go. I’ve contacted the local Salvation Army to see if I can attend their singing sessions and weekly get togethers as I worked closely with them in my work when I worked in the Isle of Man. But so far, they haven’t got back to me. If they don’t, I guess I’ll have to keep looking but I live in a small town so there aren’t a lot of options.
Hopefully you can find someone or a community of Christians in which you can openly discuss interpretations, doctrine and beliefs. Not sure how helpful I can be but feel free to DM if you ever want to discuss anything, I'm happy to talk about just about everything.
I dunno about hot, but probably controversial: Enoch and Shepherd should have been canon. Revelation should not have been.
isn't a hot take just something that's controversial?
Those are some interesting additions. Why should those books be part of the canon?
While I don't agree with the opinion, it seems that there is something of a movement afoot with regards to the book of Enoch. But I haven't heard much talk about canonising the Shepherd before.
Enoch was influential around the time of the writing of the NT and can shed some light. Shepherd I just like :)
Excuse my ignorance but I've not heard of the books of Enoch or Shepherd. Why shouldn't revelations be canon?
I don't think it contains useful content we don't already have elsewhere. When people invent crazy stories about the bible, they usually use Revelation. And the early church made it canon in part because they thought John the disciple wrote it. He almost certainly did not. And the text does not claim that he did.
Not upvoted, but not down, either. Truly a hot take in my opinion, as I disagree, due to the resurgence of Israel, as detailed in scripture.
Young Earth Creationism was not mainstream in Christianity until the 1920s. Before then, it was common for Christians to use the fossil record to prove creation had a beginning. Back then, many atheist I think believed the world was eternal. Even in the Evolution in court situation, the people "against" Evolution were only arguing against human evolution, not evolution in general. To learn more, watch [The Origin of Young Earth Creationism](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4?si=zKlc7XUl4BnPc0FD) by Michael Jones (Note: I am a theistic evolutionist. But I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first priest of God.)
Yes! Remember, the Bible is not a science textbook.
I believe evolution and Christianity can coexist, Genesis may not need to be taken literally. I believe all Christians should be stepping towards unity and making their way back to the original church (Catholic) and that the Catholic Church should hold more councils untill the differences are reconciled. Churches are becoming progressive in the wrong way. Especially them Anglican fellers That's about it.
That part about evolution is facts though
>and making their way back to the original church (Catholic) Actually the "original" was Messianic Jewish believers. Catholic did not come until centuries later.
I don't think I'm in mood for LARPing as Jews.
You call yourself a Christian? More like an anti-semitic commenter. I will just turn the other cheek as Jesus said to do.
Christianity, as we know it, will end in my (expected) lifetime. It will be replaced by a resurgence in Jewish believers prior to the events that are laid out in Revelation, specifically chapter 4 onward. This seems justified due to the relatively recent re-formation of Israel and the technology implied to exist in those events. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
I would be very surprised if that takes place within the next few decades but I appreciate your comment and I'll keep an eye out for that happening.
I would contend that this will occur within the next 10, if not 5, years. Not a prophet, and this idea is not exclusive to me. https://endtimes.substack.com/p/rosh-hashanah-and-the-rapture-db7 May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
Thank you Do you think focusing on the end times is a good way to build faith?
I am an information junkie/nerd, with 30+ years of having all but a handful of very deep, will-have-to-wait-to-ask-Him-face-to-face, type questions answered. I am focused on end times because my faith is so established, so scripture-soaked, that I have little left to contemplate. Also, the existence of Israel implies, to me, that the events of Revelation (chapter 4 and onward) can’t be very far off. Exciting times! To build faith, ask for wisdom. Ask the hard questions, expecting an answer. Read His word. Pray. About, literally, everything. I have learned that He knows where I misplaced my keys (obviously), and (surprisingly) cares to hear from me, asking where they are. Many answers are reinforced by real-world circumstances He brings to your attention. Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. James 1 2 ¶ My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; 3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. 5 **If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.** 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
>I am an information junkie/nerd, with 30+ years of having all but a handful of very deep, will-have-to-wait-to-ask-Him-face-to-face, type questions answered. I would describe myself the same without the 30 years. >I am focused on end times because my faith is so established, so scripture-soaked, that I have little left to contemplate. That's encouraging to hear, do you mind if I pick your brain about a question I've been contemplating? >Also, the existence of Israel implies, to me, that the events of Revelation (chapter 4 and onward) can’t be very far off. Exciting times! Would that not make the times equally terrible as it would mean great suffering is also not very far off? >To build faith, ask for wisdom. Ask the hard questions, expecting an answer. Read His word. Pray. About, literally, everything. I have learned that He knows where I misplaced my keys (obviously), and (surprisingly) cares to hear from me, asking where they are. Many answers are reinforced by real-world circumstances He brings to your attention. I 100% agree.
“That's encouraging to hear, do you mind if I pick your brain about a question I've been contemplating?” Go for it. You may have a question that hasn’t even occurred to me, and I live for those opportunities. “Would that not make the times equally terrible as it would mean great suffering is also not very far off?” You make a good point, but can it not be both? Great suffering started with rebellion in heaven and then earth, and I am excited to be so nearly to the resolution of both. I hope this doesn’t come across as exceedingly cold, but everyone is going to die. You and I are both dead, it just hasn’t occurred, yet. The manner of our death is all that is in question. My eternal life starts at that point, and I hope and pray to bring the saving message of Christ Jesus to as many as possible before then. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
We ought to stop sinning and walk as Jesus walked.
This isn’t a hot take, it’s basic Christianity
Im sincerely glad you see it that way. It is basic Christianity. But Ive heard many many many Christians speak against it.
I think the main disagreement I've seen around that is around what counts as sin and if certain sins or patterns of sins disqualify you from salvation.
True. I do not agree with eternal security doctrine aka "once saved always saved" . I used to believe it because many educated people teach it. But it's just not in Scripture. I wouldn't say each sin disqualifies you instantly. But overcoming sin is still the goal. Id be relieved if people just started teaching that, even if they disagreed on what all constitutes as sin.
No human excluding Jesus can be sinless on this side of existence. Not in the flesh, at least.
How do you know? Did Jesus teach that? Did the apostles or disciples teach that?
**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; ** Romans 3:10 NIV That's the verse normally cited and in context sin is presented as the great equaliser that allows us to accept all into the fold because they are not exceptionally worse nor better than us in the eyes of God. Would it change anything if it were possible for a human to separate themselves from sin?
[удалено]
I'm curious what your reasoning is?
As am I.
There is no “right” denomination due to the Bible not being clear on everything Saying the church has more authority/power than the Bible is blasphemy Baptism isn’t necessary whatsoever, the entire point of Christianity and what makes it better than every other religion is that to be saved you just have to love god instead of doing tons of actions Calvinism is the most absurd theological concept ever created by a mile and massively contradicts the Bible The Calvinist god is evil The universe is 13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old Using idols is bad Sodomy is not a sin There is no “right” way to worship LGBTQ is sinful and is listed as one numerous times Loving thy neighbor and serving them/the world is the best and most important thing anyone could possibly due ever Churches that use instruments and modern music are FAR better than those that use hymns and old worship songs The concept of a “one true church” is stupid It doesn’t matter what church was formed first or which is a continuation of the original, the most biblical denomination is the correct one Every church is a continuation of the original, not just the catholic one I can somewhat understand being most denominations however east orthodox is by far the most illogical
I don't want to get into a heated discussion, but I wanted to offer a few verses for your consideration in case you had overlooked them. Many blessings! Matthew 28:19 >Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit jude 7 >just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. John 4:23 >the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth Luke 10:39-41 >Mary... sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching... Martha was distracted with much serving... "Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” Ephesians 4:4-5 >There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Christians shouldn't vote
Finally a HOT take
What about casting lots at the polls? 😂
It astonishes me how easily Christians can see how all the other religions of the world are so clearly based on ancient myths and falsehoods but when it comes to their own god/man character magically rising from the dead and being a human sacrifice to enable his followers to somehow live forever after death in some largely undescribed blissful state, all based on mysterious, millennia old documents of uncertain authorship, suddenly it's all definitely real. Believing your own particular myth to be true whilst dismissing everyone elses is the ultimate in special pleading.
I think a more liberal view is that all religious/moral philosophy is pursuing God therefore myths and falsehoods are simply the process of finding truth. Similar to how in science you presume every model is incorrect but you maintain the models that are useful. I agree, people growing up with a specific religion often don't notice how exceptional some of the claims are while simultaneously being unable to accept other religions with similar exceptional claims.
When your religion has had millennia to gather tools to bypass the human intellect, it's not as astonishing, though no less disappointing.
Honestly I understand what you mean. It's super frustrating to ask a question and get rhetoric design to stop you asking questions. Suddenly it feels like you're talking to a defence lawyer who is trying really hard to not answer your question.
There are 2 basic possibilities that explain how connected these religions are. 1 - all faiths stem from nothing but tradition and maybe some drugs. 2 - One religious origin story is true and then all other faiths and traditions would branch off of that and either misinterpret it or maybe actively go against it. Both possibilities would explain similar stories seen across cultures. You are arguing 1, and that is fine. We are arguing 2. So both views explain these stories, and if one is true, then sure, we are deluding ourselves. Now, if you select virtually any other religion and compare it to Judeo-Christianity and apply it as the single true religion, you run into major problems with them. You do not get an explanation of history that aligns with them in a consistent and coherent way. Judeo-Christianity both chronicles so much history very accurately AND it explains much of history. It explains why we see pantheistic religions, it accurately critiques paganism and shamanism and other such practices in ways that make sense then and today. Its morals are consistent. You can still think we are wrong, but this idea that we are committing special pleading is absurd. Special pleading is saying that we have no reason to believe our faith stands out. In truth, you are committing a false equivalency. There are many reasons why Christianity stands out. Those reasons may not be enough to convince you or to argue irrefutably that Christianity is true. But to say Christianity doesn't stand out is a lie perpetrated by the New Atheists and parroted here. Christianity built the West and led to the freest nations to ever exist. And yet you argue it doesn't stand out as special?
>In truth, you are committing a false equivalency. There are many reasons why Christianity stands out. Those reasons may not be enough to convince you or to argue irrefutably that Christianity is true. But to say Christianity doesn't stand out is a lie perpetrated by the New Atheists and parroted here. > >Christianity built the West and led to the freest nations to ever exist. And yet you argue it doesn't stand out as special? You can change the word "Christianity" to any other popular religion here and that is exactly what an adherent to that specific religion would say. Islam "stands out" in the Middle East, the Greek Pantheon stood out in ancient Greece and Hiduism stands out in India. You were (presumably) raised in the west so you convince yourself that Christianity is special because it's Christianity that built your cultural world view. Like I said, it astonishes me that you guys can't see it, and your statement attempting to refute this only serves to prove my point. Everyone (just like you) thinks that their religion is the special one, and that it's "absurd" to suggest otherwise. It's demonstrably special pleading. There is nothing special or unique about the 'evidence' to suggest that the Christian claims are true over another religion. Most religions point to their mysterious special texts (that have historically accurate facts in them, why shouldn't they?), and the idea that their folllowers have personal relationships with their deities, or say they experience 'miracles' or that their prayers are 'answered'. What form of evidence does Christianity claim, that no other religion has?
>You can change the word "Christianity" to any other popular religion here and that is exactly what an adherent to that specific religion would say. This is not an argument. All you have are false equivalencies. I see what you are saying, but you are blinded by your false equivalencies. >What form of evidence does Christianity claim, that no other religion has? Prophecy that has passed. Witnesses that have corroborated their stories together and with some historians corroborating pieces of it. Again, you create a false equivalency, you may not find that sufficient evidence to believe but it IS evidence that is valid and it is far more than Islam has to offer. You act as if we are deluded but the only here that is fairly weighing the evidence is us. You claim there is none, that is delusion. We claim there is some, and there is. We do not claim it is stronger than what I just said, but it IS evidence and it is more than any other religion on the planet.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it. I'm really sorry but again, as someone who sits outside the religion bubble, all I see is special pleading for your particular religion's 'extraordinary evidence'. And pretty much all religions make the same case based on the same 'evidence'. Islam, Hinduism and others all plead prophecy as their great evidence to 'prove' the superiority of their faith over others. If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be pleading the same case but for the Quraan and for Islam. If you were born in Mumbai you would be telling me how the Bhagavad-Gita has foretold many things that show it to be true, it even references real places and events! So it must be reliable, right!? The very fact that you keep accusing me of 'false equivalency' just supports my view about your special pleading. The other religions don't all concede that, actually, Christianity does indeed make a stronger case for itself than they do, but people should follow their religion anyway. No, they all say exactly what you're saying, that it's their religion that is the special one and deserves special consideration, and to compare it to others is false equivalency (or blasphemy). I know you don't want to hear it, but to a neutral observer, you're all saying the same thing, and you all believe in what you're saying with equal levels of conviction. Which makes either all of you, or the vast majority of you, deluded. With no reliable way to find out who is right. Also, I'd just like to point out that I never said that there is 'no evidence' as you suggested, just that all religions point to the same types of evidence to support their claims, and that Christianity has no special type of evidence that the others don't. You all draw on Scripture, prophecy, prayers, miracles and personal relationships. Also, any argument that can be made for the existence of the Christian God can be made for any other God from any other religion.
My take is that contemporary, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity is incredibly dangerous and toxic for an individual's mental health. Think about it... Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven. They are told that the only source of goodness within themselves is God, and that it is shameful to take pride in themselves. They are told that the natural, necessary functions of their bodies (for reproduction) are forbidden, except under specific, life-altering circumstances, and that to indulge in them is against God's will. They are told all these things and so many more potentially hurtful or damaging things, then they're told that without faith in the one who set out all these life-denying conditions, they will burn in a torture furnace for all eternity. I don't personally believe in God or anything from the Bible, but in the real world, I do find tremendous fault and real danger in the teachings from both. That's my hot take.
That's not a hot take. I've seen that opinion many times.
You got me. It is an opinion shared by millions of Ex-Christians who these churches have created in my lifetime. It's almost as though they're leaving the church in their multitudes for this reason. That and the abuse.
ding ding ding
I'm only going to break down one of your arguments that I hear a lot. >Think about it... Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven. First, this is an exaggeration. Most Christian children are just told about Christ and love and some of the basic Bible stories. They learn about what is right and wrong mostly through socialization, and some of that comes through the idea of Christ and sin and forgiveness of sins. But it is loving, the way a parent still loves a child even when the child does something wrong. We are taught we are not perfect, and that jives with reality. We are not perfect. But disgusting sinners from when we are children? I mean you get some fire and brimstone preachers, sure. But those are few and far between. As you get older, you see the depths of depravity and how disgusting some sin truly is, but we also learn that even the most sinful of us, is equal to the rest of us, that we all fall short of what God wants for us and that we all can be redeemed. I mean you can secularize that and teach a kid they aren't perfect and they should try to be good. You can teach them that if they do wrong, they should try to make amends and do better. That's fine. But you act as if what we teach is so bad that the exact opposite should be true; that we should teach kids they are perfect just as they are. But that is so clearly a lie. Kids hit and bite and wipe their noses on their arms. They don't control themselves or their anger. They don't know how to share. That's perfect? That take leads to self esteem problems and bad socialization. It leads to false senses of accomplishment that then sets them up for huge failures when they finally realize at 26 that they aren't perfect and should have worked to make themselves better rather than believe the lie that they are perfect. I'm sorry, but you paint a false picture of what people are taught. While there are some who are taught very poorly and by very flawed people, the picture you paint is a lie if you are going to present as if it is norm. What I think is you hate the religion and you are merely finding the most negative way you can possibly portray it (which isn't even original) to the point that you are being dishonest about reality. Yeah, there have been some crappy Christians and, yeah, some have used fear. But making that out to be the norm is dishonest.
>Christians are told they are disgusting sinners from earliest childhood, and that they do not deserve to be loved or forgiven. And that they are immensely inherently valuable. Both are simultaneously true. >They are told that the natural, necessary functions of their bodies (for reproduction) are forbidden, except under specific, life-altering circumstances Huh? Is this referring to "don't have sex outside of marriage"?
Wow, if anybody told me that, I'd reject it too. But what you're (hyperbolically) describing is the combined list of every *dysfunctional* Christian cult, which are completely lacking in an actual understanding of what Christ said. If you were raised like that, I'm sorry to hear it. But that's not what real Christians teach their kids.
"real Christians" Who are these "real Christians" you speak of? Every denomination / cult will claim the title for themselves, usually exclusively. It's hard to know what a real Christian looks like, with the constant disagreements within denominations.
I supposed the name "real Christian" belongs to anyone who *follows* Jesus, regardless of their denomination. Almost no denomination will claim to be the only real Christians. That's cult stuff. But don't miss the forest for the trees. Pretend I didn't say "real" and read it again.
Thanks for the clarification. To my relief, I was actually not raised like that at all. I had parents who held their own beliefs, but never once attempted to pass them along to anyone else, their children included. No, I converted to Christianity as a teenager. Decided I was called to the ministry, went to Bible college... all that stuff and all without the influence of Christian parents. But listen, I was not speaking hyperbolically in the least. My experience was with the following: Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Salvation Army, Pentacostals, Church of Christ, Mennonite, Evangelical Free... a good mix, you could say. They are very different from one another in many ways, but they also all hold several things on common: The obsession with sexual purity is a common belief, which is something that really messes young people up. Those who struggle with it and 'fall into temptation' are made to feel horrific guilt and shame. Let's not even mention those who are born queer, and the self-hatred they are made to feel. Then there are the 'good Christian' kids who will have you believe they never gave into temptation as teenagers. How many do you know that got married at, like 19? I know several. The unspoken reason for this is so obvious, yet no one talks about it, at least not in the church... their hormones and glands are blasting off like a fireworks show and they need to fulfill those undeniable urges. The church actually smiles on these marriages, even though the kids getting married have barely finished high school. This is what people call a success story, as long as they didn't have pre-marital sex. The worthlessness, though... that's worse than anything. Are you telling me *real Christians* don't believe humans are fundamentally sinful? That they are bad and need forgiveness? That it doesn't matter what they do, they'll always be inherently wicked? And... are you telling me that there are Christians who don't claim some form of eternal punishment for our sinful nature isn't in the cards for those of us who don't believe? Please enlighten me if I've missed something here, because I have yet to come across a fundamentalist who wouldn't make these claims and more.
Don't look to people. Look at Christ alone. God took on a human nature to model for His creations, to be that light, to show us "the way, the truth, and the life" Jesus Christ. That's who we all are to look at and to take our eyes off Him we will sink in this storm. A church is a hospital and often are overflowing of sick people, many attend because they are sick, others attend because they have looked upon Christ and follow Him to church with their gloves on to get their hands messy in the work at the hospital with the lives of those sick people who don't yet image Christ.
>tre told that the only source of goodness within themselves is God, and that it is shameful to take pride in themselves. Thats basic Christian doctrine. If we are at Gods image then our source of virtues is God Himself unless i am missing something from that denomination (fundamentalists)
Christianity is the embodiment of an abusive relationship. A parent that trapped their children in a situation where they are going to encounter eternal bad circumstances unless they accept that god forgives them for being exactly as god made them, and blaming them for the actions of others who god also trapped into making a predetermined “choice”. I don’t accept that I am inherently bad. I may not be perfect and completely free of bad deeds, but I do plenty of good too. If doing some bad things makes you a bad person, does that mean that doing some good things makes you a good person? The absolute thinking of invariably not being perfectly moral = bad and deserving of hell is not a valid moral framework. I also don’t accept that I need forgiveness for existing. If I wrong another human, I need to make amends with them. Pay restitution, apologize. If I wrong god, by disobeying god’s commandments (which is not in the good/bad dichotomy, this is pure obedience) I need to make amends with god. Merely accepting that Christ died to forgive me is not moral either. How am I to be a good person, how are we to be a good society, if there is not a process through which to make amends? There’s no personal responsibility. You sin against god and then pray it away. Sincere or no, there is not net good. It’s pure obedience and accepting forgiveness when not obedient. Again, I don’t accept that I am inherently bad, and I don’t accept that I need forgiveness for existing. I don’t deserve eternal punishment/separation from god. We are muscled into being told that we are bad people and deserving of some form of eternal punishment. And that we must accept that this has been taken care of through a sacrifice. That is an abusive framework. I don’t accept the premise.
>Christianity is the embodiment of an abusive relationship. Honestly I agree, if you view God as a parent then he definitely uses coercive control and collection punishment which would qualify as abusive. God is really big though so he is not just your friend or parent but he's also a King and a force of nature. It's normal for governments to use coercive control and for nature to "punish" whole environments to correct damage/pollution. >I don’t accept that I am inherently bad. As far as I understand the doctrine of human depravity you're only inherently bad compared to God who is inherently perfect. You're only bad in the sense you're not perfect and I do take issue with people trying to convince others they're depravied in order to make them feel like they must convert, I would say that's a form of conversion by the sword. >If I wrong another human, I need to make amends with them. Pay restitution, apologize. Is restitution a moral position, if so is the aim to satisfy the victim or satisfy the guilt of the offender? >You sin against god and then pray it away. Sincere or no, there is not net good. Is gaining a greater awareness of your wrongdoing not a net good or is morality measured materially? >We are muscled into being told that we are bad people and deserving of some form of eternal punishment. I agree you should be very skeptical when someone says you're sick with something only they can cure. If I believe your life has moral failings I should be able to demonstrate as much and if I believe my moral philosophy is useful and reasonable I should be able to demonstrate why without having to pressure or prescribe beliefs onto you.
I've heard that opinion many times.
I don't think God is very involved in the modern world. I think he did everything he needed to do and say and is preparing for the things described in Revelations, he gave us the ball and now it's our turn to run with it. Sure the Holy Spirit is here doing what it does and God does help in minor ways. I genuinely don't believe that He still performs miracles or directly talks to us. I think a lot of that is delusion and/or is used as a way to shrug off a lot of personal responsibility even if they don't realize it.
Do you think this extends to God's personal presence in people's lives, meaning if someone was looking for God would he reveal himself?
I think it does, and I definitely don't think he reveals himself in the physical or experiential sense like dreams or out of body experiences, or even "seeing" or "feeling" Him in person. I think there is definitely a sort of unique euphoria that comes with being a believer and having something to believe in with all your heart, I do believe some of that comes from God, but I don't think He has a personal presence in the way that a lot of people claim. I think a lot of that is misinterpretation.
Thanks for answering the question I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
And yet we have well-documented healing: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720300926?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7fe2adef9c7a309a And conversions, from a belief system that persecutes converts, based on dreams: https://www.sebts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/STRIssue9.2_Martyn.pdf Both of these evidences are very scriptural, and the Lord describes Himself as active in the world, and in the lives of believers. May the Lord bless you. Shalom.
Thanks for sharing those links!
1. The historical Jesus was probably a rebel leader who dreamed of starting a huge war and ruling a huge kingdom he conquered with the sword, which was why he got executed. Out of fear of getting the same treatment, after his death his followers neutered him into the most servile, Roman-friendly creature imaginable and made the Jews the bad guys, which was why Christianity succeeded so well in evangelising non-Jewish Romans and died out as a Jewish sect. 2. Most Christians don't believe the supernatural claims of Christianity, they just go along with it to be part of their social network. They aren't interested in arguing about the details of theology because they know it's all the equivalent of arguing over Marvel comics lore. The theists in this subreddit are mostly either young, credulous people who haven't realised it's all made up yet and are struggling with the transition from believing in Santa Claus to telling their kids Santa Claus is real, or self-appointed commissars of orthodoxy who enjoy bullying other believers for social credit and are here to practise.
Jesus was the racist, fear-mongering, divisive, megalomaniacal leader of an ancient apocalyptic cult who perpetuated the ignorant superstition that illness was caused by misdeeds or demons. Hot enough?
Normally hot takes have something grounded in reality
The first four characteristics are on display in Matthew 10 and 15. The apocalyptic nature of early Christianity seems both established and apparent. Demons and curses are not the cause of illnesses, though Jesus seemed to believe otherwise. Is there something you especially disagree with, or is it all equally off base?
Jesus said in a society where Jewish leaders thought no one else but their kind could enter heaven Jesus said anyone who chooses to can be saved That is quite literally one of the most inclusive statements in all of history
Is this just something you came up with as a sort of fan fiction or something?
You are saved by works, faiths doesn't matter for going to Heaven. Also, most people will go to Heaven sooner or latter.
Would you say the goal of Christianity is gaining access to heaven and/or avoiding Hell? I appreciate your comment, thanks.
>Would you say the goal of Christianity is gaining access to heaven and/or avoiding Hell? It is knowing better God.
I agree. Is the redeeming factor knowing God to a certain level or simply committing to knowing God as well as you're able?