Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

truthloverI am curious here.If Christianity and "the Faith" as you call it are a failure Then how do you know that there is even a lifestyle that is the "way it ought to be"?When did it fail and how do you know that it was different before it failed than after it so- called failed?

Well, I obviously think so. I don't know any statistics, nor whether it would be possibly to accurately know this. (If it were possible, then a stop would be put to the abuse, I'd imagine.) I'm talking about real people with real faces, but no real motivation or incentive to do any work or take any responsibility for their lives, and I've met enough of them to think it's way too common.

Yes. Honesty. 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. No, if I ignored all the things in the paragraph I just wrote, then I would imagine it's very much alive and well.Ray Comfort once told a story (fiction, fortunately) about a parachute company that created a faster, easier way of packing parachutes. The unfortunate side effect was that 90% of the time, the parachutes wouldn't open. When the complaints began coming in, they were offended at the insensitive people who ignored the 10% of people who had fallen from 10,000 feet and more and landed safely because of their parachutes.Ray Comfort was addressing that to you, jano. You're living in a dream world.

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. I am simply arguing the terrible lack of results that Christianity produces today is not Christ's fault, nor it is a fault with the original message. I believe the original message is powerful, provides the Spirit of God and grace and fruits of grace, and that it has produced and can still produce these things.I will add that, personally, I don't believe Christ "paid the price" for sin on the cross, because I believe God has always been merciful, and I believe he has no need to kill innocents in order to be merciful. I believe Christ's death was to change us not God.

Whoo whee! I love this question!I am a history buff. I love church history. I have read everything the 1st and 2nd century Christians wrote. I have read a lot of what the 3rd century Christians wrote, and less of later works. I have read three histories of Christianity written in the 4th century as well (Eusebius, Socrates (not the philosopher), and Sozomen).The change begins small, but early. I would point to Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in AD 110, as an instigator of the change. He was trying very hard to squash the gnostics in the church. Paul & John wrote against them in strong terms, but Ignatius took action to shut them down by increasing the authority of the bishop and decreasing freedom.Later, you can see the transition from a spiritual people, reliant upon God, to a more instructed, formalized people reliant on doctrine (based on a growing "apostolic tradition"). This produced a more controllable population with less problems with mavericks, but also a weaker, less committed people.By the time Diocletian and Constantine pulled the great judo throw on Christianity, they were ripe for it, anyway. Doctrinal battles were beginning to rock the church. Once Diocletian pushed the church with the great persecution, then Constantine pulled it in with the Edict of Toleration, it was all over. The change at that point is dramatic.Bishops became public officials, and there was motivation for corrupt and ambitious men to pursue church leadership roles. Much of the population joined the church, almost none of which had really embraced the faith. Politically appointed bishops began deciding doctrinal issues, which now had to explain how you could be in the church yet not live like a disciple. It became normal, as it always is in large groups, for a small group of people to handle all the decisions and programs.That's the structure changes. The action changes were dramatic. Bloodshed and political intrigue became common. In Constantinople, two feuding churches fought till blood ran in the streets over a dead bishop's casket. Simply awful.The ban on warfare ended not too long after that. Most people don't realize that military service was universally rejected by Christians until AFTER Constantine. Even in Constantine's day, it was forbidden. The Council of Nicea (the same one that produced the Nicene Creed) decreed that anyone who joined the military "like a dog returning to its own vomit" would be banned from communion for up to 13 years (Canon 12, I think..may have been Canon 20).Really, "the church" never recovered. The Orthodox and Roman Catholics are correct in their claim of being of direct organizational descent from Paul, John, & Peter's churches. However, those organizations clearly bear no resemblance to the churches of Acts.There have been reform movements that have varied in their success, but I believe that those who have simply become believers in Christ, attempting to follow all he taught, have been astonishingly successful at producing a life and a people that are beautiful in their lifestyle, admirable in their character, and kind and beneficial to the society around them.The churches of America, almost across the board, cannot make this claim. They're just like everyone else; some good, some bad, most in between. The terminology I chose is difficult. I'm really trying to say two things with that. One, that there is a lifestyle that Christ said he was trying to produce, based on the Sermon on the Mount and all his other teachings. Two, that this lifestyle is recognizably wonderful to almost everyone.I am not saying that everyone agrees that premarital sex is wrong. I am not saying that everyone agrees than drunkenness should never happen. I am saying, though, that the faith and teachings of Christ produce a Spirit and power that provides a loving, kind, joyful, united lifestyle that is recognizably wonderful, as well as producing the "holiness" that he prescribed. Of course, I think the holy behavior and the lifestyle go hand in hand, but I'm not asking anyone to agree with that in this thread. I'm specifically avoiding that subject.So, the reason I know that there is a lifestyle that is "the way it ought to be" is based on looking at people's reactions to it, and knowing what virtues are universally honored in all societies, even among atheists. The question is, will faith in Christ produce a grace that will produce such an honored lifestyle among his disciples.My point, my argument is that it will.

?? 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. A unifying-enabling statement if ever I heard one

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.

lover]-->