Will you be discussing Christianity INC? Will you be talking about the major for profit company totally shielded from taxes, accountability or supervision?
Er....ain't you forgetting someone Jar. Three letter word beginning with G
This message has been edited by iano, 15-Nov-2005 06:33 PM
Everyone, except some really annoying and obnoxious types of Christians, agrees that Mother Theresa was an awesome Christian. If everyone who believed in Christ turned out like Mother Theresa, then everyone would have to agree that Christ had immense power to transform people.
Are you basing MT being a Christian on her actions, Truthlover?
But I do believe that Christ claimed that he would send his Spirit to anyone who believed in him, and that person would change for the better--everyone across the board.
What makes you think that is not happening? It is going to happen down at individual level in the first instance. And you can only really notice the change in individual who is close to you and who you knew pre/post conversion. Unless your very fortunate, it won't be that many people you can observe this of
Then it moves up to small group level, say local church. I don't know about your church but ours is very active in the community on practical levels. But again, you wouldn't know of it..
Then it moves up a scale: Samaritans Purse's operation Christmas Child will send millions upon millions of gifts to kids around the world this Christmas. There are many, many other Christian agencies putting their money and sweat (in practical sense) where their faith is. Bucket loads of them
I don't understand this "Christianity is broken slant". What would have to happen for you to think it fixed? Apart from the early years of the church (ie: the epicentre of the explosion of Christianity which, like any explosion, could be expected to be a little more concentrated then) when has Chrisitanity been fundimentally (oops) any different to now.
That is not happening except in the rarest of instances. Therefore, Christianity looks powerless, and possibly even evil. It's therefore either not the real faith, or it's some broken version of it, and I'm arguing that the real faith has produced and can still produce all I've described above.
You want to get out more There are Christian rallies in Africa which attract 10's of 1000's of people. If you can ignore the "poor little vunerable Africans being taken advantage of by the nasty Christians" slight, you'll see Christianity is, world wide, is very much alive and well
When I was doing it, it was. In Ireland at any rate. False claiming of unemployment benefit was rampant: students, motorcycles couriers and building trade being particularily noticeable. Because I was one of each of these at various stages and was false claiming myself, I could spot my fellow false-claimers quite easily: the dried concrete on the boot with the steel toe-cap poking through the leather was a dead giveaway.
I imagine its the same in the States. If it's possible to rip off (and it's never THAT hard) then there will be a queue out the door to do it. It's 'free' money Shraf: what do you expect?
Don't believe me? Put on a civil-servant type suit, stroll onto a building site in an area which doesn't have much chance of having many illegal immigrants on it. Take out a camera and start pointing at folk. Insta-ghosttown
But I do believe that Christ claimed that he would send his Spirit to anyone who believed in him, and that person would change for the better--everyone across the board.
iano writes:
What makes you think that is not happening?
tl writes:
Honesty.
??
tl writes:
(Christianity is fixed when)It ceases to be a horrible embarrassment. That it become more known for its unity than its division. That its nominal membership become less than the majority. That Barna's statistics would show that Christians are significantly different from non-Christians on issue that are supposedly significant to Christians, such as divorce, abortion, and teen pregnancy.
There is likely more Nike sportswear in the world that is not manufactured under the auspices of Nike than that there is. Does this mean there is something wrong with Nike?
What effect on Christianity if folk decide to take up nominal membership and assume the Christian badge? Surely it is better that non-Christians who assume the mantle of Christianity attend church and hear the gospel than that they be filtered out. Me, I love it when non-Christians come to our church. Sure, some folks actions (be they Christian or non-but-nominal Christians) give Christianity a bad name but what else do you expect. Where better for Satan to target than the headquarters of his arch enemy. Of course he'll use our sinful tendencies against us. I would if I was in his position too.
Plus there is more unity and harmony at ground level that is apparent in the shenanigans that go on at the top of the hierarchies. Whilst there is a bit of private criticism at the RC/Presbyterian/Nazerenes views on things down my way, when push comes to shove we are united in one thing. Christ, and him crucified. And the interaction is there too.
Ray Comforts (non-opening parachute) was addressing that to you, jano. You're living in a dream world.
The question is, will faith in Christ produce a grace that will produce such an honored lifestyle among his disciples.
Two questions, one of which may be off topic (but maybe you could digress a little further to clarify it. Not for debate as such)
Q1: The language of your last post I agree with, Faith should produce fruit. Its just that the mechanism for producing it is a little hazy to me. What part does the Holy Spirit play in the fruit production of a Christian in your opinion?
Q2: At what point do you consider the individual fruit producer to have succeeded. Where is the line above which you would consider the individual Christian (and by extension the church) to be fixed.
Take the newly converted individual who is climbing back, with great gusto, from a lifetime of debauched living and who barely understands the bible and who adds little, materially, to the 'headline' work of the body Christianity. Is he not concievably doing better and bearing more fruit (due to avoidance in producing bad) than the mature Christian who is active in bearing noticable headline fruit but who relatively speaking, may be stagnating somewhat in his walk.
IOW: If one measures only by what appears on the bottom line, one might be missing the asset building that is going on underneath.
< !--UE--> Christ came to offer the Spirit of God and grace. I think that's not at question. I say that this is a powerful offer that has produced and still will produce the benefits I've been describing. What happens if people ignore that offer is not really my concern in this thread.
In fact, it's not really my concern at any time
Oh dear....
and I believe he has no need to kill innocents in order to be merciful.
Which 'innocents' are you referring to here?
This message has been edited by iano, 16-Nov-2005 09:18 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 16-Nov-2005 09:19 PM
Mike claimed (first) that the bible is historically inaccurate. Will he be invited to take his claims to the appropriate thread too. Or is the presumption that the Bible-is-inaccurate-until-proved-otherwise, the AdminSchraf stance? If so and with respect, could AdminSchraf, in the appropriate place, inform me as to how this stance was arrived at?
This message has been edited by iano, 17-Nov-2005 12:32 PM
I wouldn't address "the individual Christian (and by extension the church)." I've answered this question already, so I'll just paste it in from earlier:
tl writes:
That it cease to be a horrible embarrassment. That it become more known for its unity than its division. That its nominal membership become less than the majority. That Barna's statistics would show that Christians are significantly different from non-Christians on issue that are supposedly significant to Christians, such as divorce, abortion, and teen pregnancy.
The church is the body of believers. Christians - irrespective of their (man-made) denomination or whether they are of any denomination. A Christian, you may agree, is somebody made so by God. Now there appears to be, in the States as in Ireland, a large amount of people who profess to be Christians. The question one must ask is: are they in fact Christians? Patently a Christian is not simply one who calls themselves such.
Do these Barna statistics take account of that or do they simply ask people "what are you" and if the answer is 'Christian' proceed to plough the data in under the category "What Christians think about x,y,z"? If the latter, I would suggest the stats are not worth the paper they are written on, nor can any view about the state of the church be derived from them. This on the basis of rubbish in/rubbish out.
Same for the likes of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jesse du Plant, the Pope and other apparent representitives of THE CHURCH. Basic question: are they in fact church members or simply self-styled Christians who consider themselves members of the church?
This message has been edited by iano, 17-Nov-2005 03:49 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 17-Nov-2005 03:54 PM
He promised that every branch in him (every one) would bear much fruit and receive everything they asked from him.
What about the pruning that God carries out TL? That pruning must take place spiritually (as well as horticulturally) indicates that a process is set in motion. What is pruned is that which bears no fruit. Thus we can expect, at any particular moment fruit/no fruit in each person. And since the body is made up of many people we have no reason to expect any different there either.
That is not happening. In fact, no one is more noted for division and bigotry than Christians
As with above: is that the Christians or the people who call themselves Christians but who aren't?
Perhaps I am dense and uncultured but this smacks highly of arrogance and elitism
It can sound that way SL. In a nutshell, the gospel says we, by that I mean, everyone ever born, is a filty, manky, rotten, greasy sinner in the eyes of God. He loves us but hates what we do. It doesn't matter whether you act like hitler or mother theresa in your life - that is the worlds standard of Goodness. As an unsaved per however, God views us all as steeped in sin. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags". We offend him.
The saved person is given the righteousness of Christ. Because there is no sin blocking his view (as it were) the saved person, when they do 'good' things, please God their Father. Pleasing God is something an unsaved person CANNOT do: their sin stands in the way - that is what God sees when he looks at them. Unrighteousness.
These 'good' things may not be any better in a worldly sense that the good things an unsaved person does, but it is not the wordly value system that counts - its Gods value system.
It may not sound fair to you. It may sound arrogant. But that is just the way it is. And it's his opinion that holds sway whatever you or me may think of it. He is the boss afterall. He decides how the whole thing works. I would go so far as to say that I think that not even He, could make it work any differently.
Good summation of the practical outworking of Christianity Jar. That's kind of it in a nutshell. "What have they got??" should be the question raised in the non-Christian mind
I just fail to see how it can be demonstrated that Christianity isn't actually doing this. The antics of a part (if they are indeed a part) of the church on tv and in politics seem to be used to fail the whole church. But the vast majority of the church is beyond the view of TL
I question the data used as a measure. How does one know who a Christian is in order to decided that they aren't making the grade.
In addition to what I said above SL, it is worth underlining the fact that although a saved person is seen, by God, as righteous and an unsaved person not, the righteousness has nothing at all to do with the relative merits of the individual. The arrogant sound of Christianity comes when folk start pointing to their own good deeds as being a catalysing factor in salvation: "If you live right then you go to heaven. I'm going to heaven thus I must be living right and you must be living wrong" Arrogance comes when someone places themselve above another based on own (perceived) merits.
It is, however, God himself who makes a person righteous in his sight and it since receipt of this righteousness has nothing to do with ones own actions then there can be no offence taken by anybody to the righteousness a person is given by God. You can't take offence with a person for the fact they've been given something. That would be curlish and mean-minded
As to exclusivity. Christianity is exclusive in the sense that only Christians (whether they use that name or are even aware that they are Christians) go to heaven. But no-one is excluded from becoming one except those who would exclude themselves. There are many things in life that can only be done one way and we are prepared to accept it readily. The any-path-to-the-summit may fit with what people want but if it isn't that way, then it isn't that way. God makes the call and if "I am the way and the truth and the life - no one comes to the father except through me" is true then it is not our place to argue - only to comply. Should we decide we want to.
™ Version 4.2