If JC were alive today, he would be called a pinko bleeding heart liberal leftie and run the hell out Dodge.

Or maybe just locked up in Guanatanomo Bay.

You all know I'm one of the more outspoken Christians on this board. Nothing the "punk" (I mean that in a good way) says is news to me, or any other Christian I run with. We all see it, and we are all shying away from the institution of "the church". There is a HUGE difference between today's organized religion and true Christianity. Myself and others have been trying to tell you guys that.

The big-time politics, the need for power and influence, and the sheer money involved in all of it today has so deeply corrupted religion that Jesus Himself would not recognize His namesake. Or on second though, maybe he would. He was going after this kind (the Pharisees) already, back in His day. He had no use for them then, and certainly would not now.

Hopefully the punk can pull this off and get under mom and dad's skins. That's how we will know he is on the right track. If he can stick to the real Gospel message, and keep big religion pissed off at him, I'll be impressed. I'm rooting for him.

Today's church is the same as its ever been. Please point out a period in history when the "church" was really as christians say it should be. Every time I point out some horrific behavior by christians (not that any other religion has clean hands), christians always say that those aren't christians. Funny thing is, all christians say the same thing, regardless of there actions.

What is "today's church"? You seem to be implying all churches are somehow the same??? That's a pretty simplistic view, don't you think?

- Skip

Re: Caution: Religious Content - Finally someone gets it right
 

+1. good find

In my opinion, you can't be a Christian (follower of Christ) if you don't know what He taught. Some people just decide to claim the title Christian for who knows what reason and give us and the religion a bad name. (Don't lump me in with psychos bombing abortion clinics!) Too often Christianity gets blamed for the actions of ignorant people.


As far as "what it should be," I'm not saying that every bad act can always be disregarded with the "well that person must not be a Christian if they did that wrong thing."

I'm a Christian (see above definition), so I can't just pull that excuse whenever I mess up - as if I were trying to help Christianity "save face." Being a Christian doesn't mean I always do the right thing. But when I'm an @$$hole, it's not a fault in Christianity. It's me not living the way I should be. And it's up to me to take responsibilty for those actions. Trust me, I'm nowhere even close to thinking I'm perfect. I know better.

When Christians or alleged Christians try to force things upon people, they often seem to be forgetting that no advice, information, reproach, opinion, whatever, is worth giving if it's not offered with love.

The person you're talking to should matter to you more than the words you're saying. And disagreement does not release a Christian of their obligation to love unconditionally. (I'm not saying it's easy!)

One of my favorite passages is in John 8 (chopped down):
"Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ..."If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." ... those who heard began to go away one at a time, ...Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Jesus didn't agree with her actions, but he didn't even offer the slightest scolding, just love.

I have friends I disagree with . . . we're still friends.

Sorry, this was supposed to be short! I'm not trying to preach to anybody, just sharing some thoughts.
(Steps down from soapbox . . . )

Just to add one emphisis to Aaron's well writen post -- we shouldn't gloss over Jesus's last words in the story "Go now and leave your life of sin". So the message is that Jesus didn't condemn her, nor did he approve of her actions. Rather he forgave her and admonished her to stop her adultery -- a sin that was not disputed in the text. All too often people (Christians and not) fail to forgive, and just tacitly go along with sinful acts. Jesus preached and acted in the opposite fashion -- Forgive, and point out the right path.

You're right, he would be called many things, as he was in his own day. He was also "run out of Dodge" in his own day, but the the Dodge of his time were his home-town of Nazereth (With few exceptions he was rejected in the town where he grew up), as well as in Jerusalom. So if you're suggesting that times haven't changed -- we're in agreement Stewart.

As far as being locked up in Gitmo -- doubtful. Jesus never carried a weapon nor threatened bodily harm to anyone. That's hardly the case with many if not most of the folks in Gitmo. On the contrary, he welcomed the administrators (aka: Tax Collectors) and solders (The Centerion) of the "oppressing" Roman empire as friends. He even acknowledged Pilate's place in the organization as having power that was given to him from above.

The only time that I can think of when someone close to Jesus raised a weapon in anger -- Peter cutting off the ear of the High Priest's servent, Malchus on Good Friday, Jesus told Peter to put the sword away, and then he repaired the servent's ear. Even if you don't believe that the ear was miraculously healed, you have to admit that the attack and injury was never mentioned again nor was Peter arrested or treated as a criminal later that evening. So it appears to have become a non-issue, even after Peter was identified by one of Malchus's relatives. This would hardly be the case if the Malchus continued to have an open bleeding wound. So Jesus was willing to stop his followers from taking up the sword to defend him, and he took the time to heal those who had come armed with weapons to arrest and ultimately kill him. That's a level of peacefullness and compassion I doubt that you'd find amongst the prisoners in Gitmo.

Which church? There is one that claims to speak for all of us, that claims absolute God-given authority on earth. The Catholic Church. You are correct in that this church is (to quote an old Talking Heads tune) "the same as it ever was". Rife with corruption, bereft of God's word, and as power hungry as ever.

No, that church does not now, nor has it ever, represented Christianity. Maybe to the "outside world", certainly to some of its followers, but never to the rest of us. Its actions down through the ages have been anything but Christian. They have led many astray.

For a real eye-opener, do some research on what the Bible says about the anti-Christ. Compare its description to the Papacy; its declarations and actions over the years. No, the anti-Christ is not some little kid with fire in his eyes and a nasty temper. He is a mover and shaker; a man of great influence. A playuh. A man who puts himself on a pedestal and claims to speak for God Himself, with the authority of God Himself. He is likeable, approachable, and admired by his followers. His message is just close enough to the truth in some instances to fool many. Parts of his message are so clouded in papal mysticysim, decree, and tradition that no one can understand it. So he tells his followers what it all means; what to think. Hell, he kept the Bible itself from his followers for centuries. He was afraid of what might happen if folks actually read it for themselves and discovered that most of what he was preaching was contradictory to God's word.

If that is the church to which you refer, you are spot on. Yes, Christians have been saying "they are not Christians" for centuries. There have been some dynamic leaders that have defied this church and have stated that. If that is a part of this "punk's" message, it would pay to listen. He would be on the right track.

Jeff, even as a sometimes "Catholic basher", I think that we need to be careful to separate the man from the position and the organziation.

Some of the men who have been "Pope" have been great men, and great Christians. Some of them have been something less, and occasionally crooks, frauds, pediphiles, and once or twice just plain incompetant. Nor does the Catholic Church have a corner on the market for failing to live up to Christ's standards. My own denomination (Lutheran) has had it's own issues with the Nazis, sexually immoral Pastors and even anti-Sematism on the part of the denomination's name sake; Martin Luther (he was only human mind you.) Personally I would argue that the world is a better place for organized Christianity, even if organized Christianity has only managed to be 51% improvement, and 49% fouled up. The important thing is that Christians try to act with love and compassion. Trust me, the world before the dawn of the comman era (prior to Christianity) was hardly a garden of eden, even in those places like the Americas and Asia that are far removed from the Judaic-Christian tradition. I think that it would fair to say that without Christianity, and the affects of the Reformation, that the United States as we know and love it would not exist.

As Jesus pointed out, it's usually easier to "Remove the speck from your brother's eye" while ignoring the beam in our own. This is why Jesus made that statement in the first place. I should hope that Christians as a group would be somewhat more aware of our shortcomings -- and the fact that we're not is one of the reasons that God felt the need to show up on Earth and make amends for those shortcomings.

Hey Mentat - ever play FH??

I agree, John. I was refering to the institution in general, not the men in particular that have occupied the position. Even the best men that have ever worn the pointy hat, however, perpetuate the institution. It's not the men themselves that are evil (well, some actually were), that represent the anti-Christ. It's the position they fill. Some honestly try to do good while they are there, but none have done what truly needs to be done, which is to dismantle the institution itself. They have all kept the ball rolling. The Catholic Church will never appoint some one who won't.

Without naming names, I could also come up with a few other historical and current figures who would fit the description of the Anti-Christ. That's why I always hate to throw that term around.

Otherwise we'll wind up like those economist who predicted 12 of the last 6 recessions correctly! :rolleyes:

It's not the man, it's the institution, John. There have been some good men who have served as Pope. There have been some very bad men who have served as Pope. Neither is relevant. It is the position itself, and all that it stands for, that fits the Biblical description of the anti-Christ.

While there have been individuals both within and outside of the Catholic Church that have tirelessly toiled to garner that distinction for themselves, none can approach the damage to the faithful achieved by the Papacy. The anti-Christ leads away from Christ. While there have been evil men that have wrought unbelievable earthly suffering and damage, they do not meet the qualifications to be called the "anti-Christ". The Papacy (not the Pope himself) does.

And all the Christain sects claim to believe in the same God but, like the sects of other religions, seem to be happiest when bashing each other.

Since this is the idiot son of Jim and Tammy Faye, he's got their genes. He'll seem "OK" for awhile until he gathers enough followers and money, then he'll show everyone that he's as big of a wackjob as his parents. These freaks are all the same, they suck people in, then show their true colors, but by the time they do, they've suckered alot of people and are rich (with other's money).

Well, all I can say to that is if you're bashing, you're not doing it right. Either falsely claiming to be Christian or a genuine Christian getting distracted from what it's all about. In no way claiming I'm not guilty of the latter at times (getting distracted, not bashing). Just tryin' to do that less and less with each day. (Yeah . . . I've got some work left to do. Being a Christian is humbling, if nothing else.)

For example, "my church is right and anybody who's not a part of it is wrong" - those guys took a wrong turn somewhere. You know those guys with the big signs with flames on them? See above comment about delivering a message out of love for the other person. Even if a message is right it's worthless delivered in an offensive manner. It pushes people away and it's not how Christ did it. (Hence the article that started this whole thread.)

This is where I attend:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1166210429.jpg

Yeah, but unlike other religions, we don't kidnap, shoot, or blow up folks we disagree with. There are deep divisions within Christianity, no doubt, but the dirty laundry is seldom aired, and when it is the discussion remains civil for the most part. Certainly not like the current Sunni/Shiite strife.

And no, these divisions make no one happy. No one enjoys the strife. It is no more than another childish attack from an outsider to suggest anyone is "happiest when bashing each other". It helps you to continue to look down your nose at Christians, I suppose.

You guys are all going to burn in the hottest fires in he!!. Because of your wicked and evil ways.

I, on the other hand, will be rewarded eternally for my spotless purity, obedience, and........oh yeah, humility.

Exactly, When I referred to the "church" in my above post, immediately it was equated to the Catholic church. Wrong. All "churches" have a set of "beliefs" of which they must promote as the correct one (or else why would anyone ever join?), therefore they are at odds with the next "church" with different beliefs. This is true of all religions, although they all don't resort to violence every time.
Truth is all organized religions are by nature bigots and promote separation. Otherwise they would accept anyones views on god, versions of the bible and lifestyle, etc., without rancor, judgment, or trying to set public policy (laws).