"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I think that, IF Jesus didn't mean for a new belief system the be started around him, he never would have started one or gone against the established religious orgnaization(s) of his time.

    I mean, you don't say, " I am the way to God and no man can come to God but through me" for shits and giggles, know what I mean?

    I can't call myself "Love" or "lover" (LOL) because as much as it is my goal, I fall very short of it.

    I don't have an issue with the mane Christian, that is why I use it, I agree however that, IF someone does have an issue with it, they shouldn't use it.

    I have a very good friend this is a muslim and you will not find a more loving and caring person, YET, we all know the bad rap Islam has.

    I have never asked him if he has issues with the term muslim, but if he did, I don't think he would use it.

  • awildflower
    awildflower

    I think that, IF Jesus didn't mean for a new belief system the be started around him, he never would have started one or gone against the established religious organization(s) of his time.

    That's a great point, why DID Jesus "go against the established religious organizations of his time?" What was his problem with the Scribes and Pharisees? Wasn't it that they made themselves known in some holier than thou way? And IF Jesus didn't like the religions of his day, which I'll give you he didn't, then why wasn't he more clear about setting something else up? I mean we didn't have the Church until 300 hundred years after him. Even the "early Christians" started all their meetings and such AFTER Jesus. Seems to me The Son Of God, would have been very clear at what he wanted and would have went to great lengths to make it happen. It is very telling that as much as he hated the institutions of his day, he wasn't trying to replace them with others. He was simply saying, if you live like I do, you don't have a need for any of that. No one will be able to tell you how to worship because you will already know what to do.

    And looking at what he said about "no man can come to God except through me" he obviously meant "by living by my actions". If he meant by being literal followers of him, he'd have made that very clear. Besides, living by Jesus actions and not following a man is all encompassing. Being a Christian and following one man isn't. I think The Son Of God would opt for all encompassing.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    I mean we didn't have the Church until 300 hundred years after him.

    That isn't accurate.

    BTS

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Paul adressed letters to the churchs 30 years after Jesus ressurected.

    The problem is that, somewhere along the lines, the churches became and organization and all the crap that came with it.

    They forgot one of Jesus' most important lessons, "ALL must be servants a none will be higher than another".

    Jesus KNEW that they would start a "religion" after him, he gave them the commision to do so and rules on hoe to behave and for the most part, that is what they did, untill it got muddled.

    It became more about the organization than the faith, than the people.

  • awildflower
    awildflower

    BTS, what is accurate?

    Don't even get me started on Paul, lol.

    he gave them the commision to do so and rules on hoe to behave and for the most part,

    How and what "rules"? And how do you know he "knew" they would start a religion after him?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Paul may have said somethings that got taken out of whack, but Paul and John have much in common.

    Paul's justification via faith and predominace of love above all things are the cornerstone of what Jesus Taught, or vice-versa if you prefer.

    How and what "rules"? And how do you know he "knew" they would start a religion after him?

    Well, there is the last supper, the great commsion, the washing of the feet and so forth.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    BTS, what is accurate?

    That there was a body of Christian believers from the beginning.

    And how do you know he "knew" they would start a religion after him?

    He told them to.

    BTS

  • tec
    tec

    I used to be ashamed to carry the title of Christian - when I was studying with JW's. But a Christian is simply a follower of Christ, and there are many sincere Christians spread out among the various denominations; as well as those who do not belong to any sect at all.

    The Church in the early centuries was just the body of Christ. The group of people who followed Christ. They called themselves Christians, and just because the name has been sullied by insincere followers, doesn't mean the name itself is bad. Sometimes good people have to stay with something to show others that it isn't what some people have turned it into.

    Jesus expected to have followers; and he gave them a specific command to show that they belonged to Him. John 13:35 - All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.

    I call myself a Christian (though I sometimes clarify that with 'a follower of Christ)... but it means so much more than just a label. It means following the example of Christ, and listening to this command. I'm no longer ashamed to identify myself as this.

    Tammy

  • moshe
    moshe
    Moshe--I like the Gospel of Thomas as it seems to provide a window into the original Jesus sayings.
    PSacramento- Where a woman must became a man before they enter the kingdom of Heaven? That Gospel?

    yeah- he said this, too.

    saying #105-Jesus said:" He who knows father and mother will be called the son of a harlot."

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    Extremists of any ilk are always problematical. *G*

    The "bible thumpers" as you (and I, not to their faces, because I have manners aka necessary social hypocrisy) call them ARE no doubt part of the problem many people have with Christianity.

    Do you know anyone who enjoys being told they're bad and unworthy most of the time or being treated as though they are? Even my dog hates it.

    But, you can use ANYTHING to look down on others if you're so inclined. My husband and I had this conversation in the car the other day, as we have slightly different political persuasions. He's a bit more liberal than I am in some ways..not socially, but politically...he's so liberal, he makes Obama look conservative. I think part of that is reactionary...he just hates seeing people suffer. He can't even watch my dogs cry when they get their toenails cut. When the kids have skinned knees, he get frantic.

    Anyway, I jokingly called him a "dirty liberal" and he laughed and said, "I'm glad you noticed." but it led to us discussing how people will use that to look down on each other. To a conservative, a liberal becomes "a bleeding heart pussy pinko" and to a liberal, a conservative is a "tight assed heartless tea bagging idiot" and on and on.

    But, it occurred to me that people will do that with anything. To the fundies, I'm sure more tolerant liberal and non literalist Christians like myself, a UU is barely Christian, if you think Christianity is defined by defining morality strictly and the Bible literally.

    (I always think of that bit on the Simpsons where the Flander's kids are playing a "Christian" video game where you get points for converting non-Evangelicals/Fundies by shooting them with little bibles, and the kid says, "Dad what do we do about Unitarians...do they count?" and he thinks a minute and says, "You get half the points."LOL)

    But, I will say that it's easier for a tolerant Christian to bear the intolerant variety, most of the time. Fundamentalism by it's very nature is non-tolerant and divisive.

    Which seems unnecessary to me, but I'm not sure that Jesus meant that exact thing when he said that Christianity would divide people and even households.

    In context, he was talking to Jews, and Jews already knew what it was like to be divided from the rest of humanity by virtue of unique belief, so why belabor the point?

    Did he mean that anyone who decided to follow his words would seem "odd" to others? That's how Witnesses interpret that, at least, to some extent.

    I'm sure that Christ was speaking of the POSSIBILITY that some would interpret his teachings in an intolerant fashion, because hey, ,some people are like that. I'm not sure that means it's a necessity to be intolerant or at odds with everyone to be Christian.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit