Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

to which truthlover responds:

quote:

---

I would agree with this, but for different reasons, I think, than you. I am glad that Christians consider same sex marriage wrong. I think Christ agrees.

---

We might be closer than you think.I'm not at all sure that all Christians consider same sex marriage as wrong. I know that I for one don't hold that belief. But that is between the individual and GOD and will be judged.But I absolutely believe that denying someone protection, passing laws that actively discriminate against another is totally against the teachings of Jesus.I have no problem with those Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin and so do not practice homosexuality. That's great. But when they then use their personal beliefs to discriminate against others, I must stand as a Christian in opposition.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Weasel wordsFaith wrote Message 172, essentialy, the old testament does not count for us mortals. (As I read her post of course)What a bunch of weasel words! For someone that preaches the literal interpretation of the bible, you violate your own words.Can you quote me some place in the new testament that repudiates the old testament? If not, it must remain in force. It continues to be "The Word Of God"

No, you did not address the point. If you choose to not address it, the so be it. But don't think for one second you are kidding me or anyone else in saying that you did.

I've supported the OT more strictly than either Randman or Truthlover in this thread. TL even pretty much dismissed it as completely inapplicable in our day as it has been superseded completely by the spiritual Kingdom of God. Funny you'd pick on me.That said, certainly the OT is the word of God, but there are many ways the NT makes it clear that we are in a different relation to the OT now. The vision of Peter that taught him that Gentile foods are no longer forbidden for instance. Paul's teaching that circumcision does not apply to the Gentiles. The Jerusalem church's willingness to reduce the requirements for the Gentiles to just a few rather than imposing the entire Law on them.The NT also teaches that the Jews of the day didn't fully understand the OT, and current Judaism certainly doesn't. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount for instance makes it clear that the Law was not a matter of outward obedience but judges the innermost part of the soul -- not merely the avoidance of overt adultery or murder, but now the sinfulness of even a lust or an anger in the heart is shown to be the real meaning of the Law. The Letter to the Hebrews also teaches the Jewish believers about the spiritual meanings of the OT, showing for instance that all the holy men of the OT were saved by faith and not by works.

Faith posted: Ever since Martin Luther split off the protestants, (and maybe before?), the Christian church keeps splitting. Why did Luther and the protestants split off? Because he (and they) was certain that the church of the day was, in short (very short) doing it wrong. He was so certain he could not stay with them. In other words, the differences were irreconcilable. This notion is important. The differences are fundamental and were not fixable.Now we have not just two positions, but 21 within the Protestants and 16 within the Roman Catholic church. That is a total of 37 separate denominations.Again, why so many? Because each one of them is certain that the others are wrong. So certain are they that they feel obligated to further split the concept of Christianity. If these differences could be fixed, they would be.What does this mean? Of these 37 denominations, at most, how many can be right? Remember, All of them claim that they are right and the others are wrong. If that did not make that claim, they would not be separate.ONE! At most, only one can be right.So, what are the odds that you and your selection in the practice of Christianity is right?As most, it is 1 in 37.In reality, it is zero. If the bible was as good as the Christians claim it is, these splits would not have occurred. One might say that man cannot live up to god’s requirements. Nonsense, this is the way he made us. If we cannot live up to his requirements, then either we, (his creations), or his bible is in error.Please, don’t try to feed me any of that tired old crap about free will. The bible and god’s people came from the same creator. If he cannot get consistency, he is not anywhere near as great as is claimed.

The split between Protestants and Catholics is huge and irreconcilable according to many, but most on that list are MINOR. I'm not sure what all are included in that number, but most of the differences do not affect the major points about what salvation is as the split between the Catholics and Protestants does. At least kindly note that 37 is quite a difference from the 22,000 claimed by Truthlover. Sometimes that even happens, denominations will merge. However, again, usually the differences are not great enough for one denomination to regard another as completely beyond the pale. But on MINOR points for the most part. That list doesn't even reflect the REAL schisms in the church, such as between conservative and liberal interpretations of the Bible, but if it did the minor points would fall away and we'd end up with even fewer Protestant denominations than 21. Yes, about such things as whether the church should be governed by bishops (Episcopal) or a presbytery (Presbyterian) etc. WHAT the disagreement is about is the important thing and again most of the differences that go back to the origin of the denominations are not crucially important. And again, what IS crucially important these days is whether a church regards the Bible as the inerrant word of God or not, and that isn't even reflected on those lists. Again, I don't care if I'm wrong about a church being governed by elders versus bishops. MOST of those 37 I expect I would agree with on the important points about things like who God is, how we are saved, and how we are to live the Christian life. The list needs to be reconceived if it is to have any usefulness. This has nothing to do with the Bible but with fallen human nature. {AbE: Even Christians with their regenerated spirit still have a lot of the old flesh left that makes mistakes with the Bible.} What a relief it will be when it's finally all over. Double nonsense back. We are FALLEN, and the Bible says so. His Creation was perfect until human beings disobeyed and became sinners, and His Bible reports the whole story accurately. Well, you're in luck as I'm a Calvinist and I don't think human free will amounts to a hill of beans. Because of the original sin that brought the Fall in Eden, we are "sinners." Our free will is like the free will of a fish in the sea that knows nothing of life on the land. We are imprisoned in one dimension of a multi dimensioned universe. We can will all kinds of things within our dimension but we can't choose to love God who belongs to another dimension, because the Fall in Eden cut us off from our ability to know that other dimension. We think we are righteous because we don't have the perspective to know we are sinners at odds with God. Only a sovereign act of God's mercy can restore us to the will to know and obey God, which otherwise we are without.He gets consistency, all right, but only from those He has redeemed from the Fall, who know Him personally as Lord and Savior.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 06:54 PM

Granted. I am not going to take the time to research that, but it does sound a little bit like dividing churches up into those that that insist that their communiion wine be authentic from Italian vineyards and those that don't. (note: I just made that up to exemplify my point, it is almost certainly wrong, but I like the analogy.) I won't grant that one. If the difference is minor, it would not be sufficient to create a splinter group. This same point fundamentaly holds for several paragraphs of your response. My point stands, and stands firmly. "God" is all powerful and all knowing. He can do anything he wants to do. As such, he knew darn well that he had created man such that man would fail. If he did not know that, then he has significant flaws. Either god made man to fail on purpose or he has flaws. Pick you poison and tell us which glass you hoist.I am making a point of trying to keep my posts short, to the point, and readable. I recognize I may sometimes fail, but that is my goal. The point is, don't take offense or read anything into it if I leave some points unanswered.I close by returning to the OT. (Original Topic as opposed to Old Testament) The preceding comments are intended to support the following position.A true christian must believe the bible, literally. So says Faith. That must mean the entire bible. Therefore, you (Faith) are obligated to destroy and kill all non believers. So it says in the bible. (as I have quoted) Since you cling to a literal reading of the bible that must be your position. If not, you have a conflict to resolve.(edited to specify OT)This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-12-2005 09:45 PM

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

I've explained to you my position but you insist on telling me it's not my position, it has to be something else determined by you. At that point I figure a discussion is over. Have a good evening.

Well, it may be inflated. I'm fine with that. But it is not misleading. Anyone who's lived in America for longer than ten minutes knows how bad the doctrinal division is among Christians. ROFLOL. That's hilarious! Oh, my goodness, let me catch my breath. Twenty-one denominations in Protestantism...LOL!!!There are 200 denominations in the Baptist church, according to a North American Baptist pastor I talked to. Missionary Baptists don't meet with other Baptists, and some Southern Baptist churches won't meet other Southern churches. Independent, KJV only churches have problems being okay with each other, and they certainly won't meet with other denominations. United Pentecostals certainly won't meet with regular Pentecostals, and the Church of God Pentecostal and the Assemblies of God, two other Pentecostal groups, split on purpose. The Churches Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches all split on purpose from one movement. There's the Exclusive Brethren, who are exclusive from the other Brethren movements, and the Mennonites and Amish may represent one history, but they won't meet with one another. The Sleeping Preacher Mennonites (yes, they're real) certainly won't meet with the Black Car Mennonites. And the Presbyterian Church of America split on purpose from the rest of the Presbyterian Church. Then there's the Methodists and Church of the Nazarene, who would object to all the partially Calvinistic churches, but won't meet with one another, either, because the Methodists have given up on holiness.Do you need me to go on. I haven't addressed the Open Bible denomination, which would probably be willing to meet with the Assemblies of God, but don't, nor the Vineyard churches, which are charismatic, but you're not going to get a Vineyard member to attend any other charismatic church. Then there's Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapels.These are all groups that have split from one another for one reason or another. None of the ones I mentioned have only one or two churches. They are all denominations. I just listed 23 of them. Give me time, and I guarantee you I can break 100, just on the ones I've ATTENDED, much less known about. No, it doesn't. That's crazy. I quoted you a passage from back then where they boasted of their unity. Who could do that today? The fact is, most of those groups were put out of the church in response to the letters that addressed them. Back then, they could do that. They could deal with such things.The only really major division in the 1st century was Christians and gnostics. That division was complete by around AD 120 or 130. The gnostics were out, and the Christians stayed united. They weren't formed into large numbers of competing churches in every city. What basic of the faith? Baptism? Salvation? Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Not on any of those that I know of.In fact, let's get down to practicals. Could the denominations of any one city get together in as one church? Let's let them meet separately by neighborhood, rather than by doctrine. Let's also throw out the "bad" ones. Let's throw out UPC for their tongues saves doctrine, and let's throw out the Churches of Christ and their offspring for their baptism saves doctrine, and let's leave just the "orthodox ones" like Nazarene, Methodist, Baptist, and the various versions of acceptable Pentecostals and charismatics.Now, let's divide the rest up by neighborhood, so that there's only normal size churches. How long till they split?The early church did it with one major split in 250 years, and that was only in one city. Ok, don't. However, I suspect 90% of our readers, assuming there are any, think you have your head in the sand. My statement here is simply true at face value. If the Mormons are fulfilling Y'shua's predictions and Christianity is not, then I recommend that everyone who wants unity and love go to the Mormons and call God as a finite human being truth and God the way you preach him error.Y'shua said that true prophets would be known by their fruit, not by what people think ought to be true. If the people preaching God as a finite human being have the fruit, then I recommend them over Christianity, because Christianity doesn't have the fruit. Bad fruit, bad tree. That wasn't just a statement by Jesus, it was a command. Go look it up.However, I don't believe the Mormons have that fruit. I have some friends who are Mormons. They do take care of each other far better than Christians do, though. I am quite impressed with that as a form of partial unity, but not impressed at all with their love or commitment to holiness. Depends on what you mean by loving togetherness. If they are living out Christ's commands and living in unity and love, then why would I dare say they have false doctrine? You know a prophet by his fruit, not by your opinion of his doctrine. If they have fruit, and I don't, then it's my doctrine that's false, not theirs.

I wanted this to have its own post: Science produces good fruit. It doesn't produce what Y'shua was talking about when he talked about good fruit, but science does produce what it would describe as good fruit. It made men fly, produced penicillin, extended our life span, cools our houses and our food, etc. Life has been transformed in ways that most people have accepted and embraced as good, because of science.Seeing that scientists can put their money where their mouth is and win, people have made scientists the prophets of the age.Meanwhile, Christianity, whose priests and preachers used to be the prophets of choice, can't produce what it says. It can't produce love. It produces things that the world simply is not impressed with.I know that the world is supposed to hate us. However, the world is also supposed to know that the Father sent the Son because of the unity of the disciples. Christianity claims to be the disciples, and they have no unity, so the world is rejecting Christ and turning to scientists.Christianity, by claiming to be the disciples of Christ, yet producing none of the things Christ said disciples would produce, dishonors Christ and produces unbelief. That, in my opinion, makes Christianity Christ's enemy.

quote:

---

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

---

While I would not call the writings of the Old Covenant worthless, nor would I throw them out, I can't ignore this passage. The old covenant was with an earthly kingdom, whereas the new covenant is with a heavenly kingdom. I believe Y'shua breathed life and fulness into the words of the old covenant, so that they become full and spiritual for those who have ears to hear.

Without stopping to discuss this, I do want to point out that this is not what I believe.

Actually, I agree with your point. I used to pray to God some years back and say, "Jesus, I have no idea why I believe in you. You said that the unity of your disciples would let the world know that the Father sent you. Can you show me that unity anywhere?"I never could stop believing, though. I eventually did find a people in unity like I was searching for, and if you give us enough time, because we really are the handiwork of God, we will show you something that will give you something to think about.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Maybe my experience is different but I've been at a combined Easter service of Vineyard, Assembly of God, Full Gospel Pentecostal and Foursquare churches, and at National Prayer Day gatherings of people from maybe not all but a whole lot of the churches in town of all denominations, at which pastors of a surprising clash of doctrines led the prayer. I've been in a Bible study at the local Episcopalian church that was attended by charismatics and Presbyterians, and one at the Presbyterian church that included them all too, including some Methodists and a stray Catholic. Similar situation at an independent Bible Church when the Bible study moved there. There does seem to be a lot of church-hopping around here, and you can find people who have spent months or years in various churches who have retained friends from them all. Maybe we're more open-minded out here in the West?This message has been edited by Faith, 12-13-2005 09:48 PM

Utterly meaningless if they can't get along on a daily basis and have to meet separately. I gave you a real world scenario that would show a unity that has meaning, where the churches of a city divided up by neighborhood rather than by doctrine. Could the one church left in that neighborhood stay together and not split? That would be a real test.Having a meeting for a common political purpose like National Prayer Day or for a holiday like Easter; do you suppose that is the unity Jesus prayed for that would cause the world to know that the Father sent him? I've been in Bible Studies like this, too, and I think they're a good thing. Wonderful. May they grow and prosper and become something common rather than rare! However, until that's the norm, Christianity has no business using those rare gems as proof of unity. Christianity is a divided mess, despite the occasional group like this.I will say, however, that such groups have not achieved the one heart, one mind, and one purpose, becoming one family that is closer than brothers that Y'shua had in mind when he prayed John 17:20-23 (and that existed for over 200 years after Y'shua's prayer). And when they move in that direction, they find that spiritual powers in high places really do exist, and normally those spiritual powers rip that group apart if they get too close to real unity.Just speaking from what I've seen.