Cofty, I didn't necessarily speak of biblical inerrancy, though I myself do subscribe to it. I meant giving our kids the ability to rationally defend their belief in God. Many Christians cannot hold their own in philosophy, science, or history in regards to that. My whole argument is that this needs to change so more intelligent conversations can be had with othe intellectual non believers. William Lane Craig has been a major proponent for this, god bless him.
How Modern Christianity has failed Christians
by Christ Alone 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
designs
PS and CA- would you argue that if the JWs just emphasized Jehovah more they would be a better religion, better people and should continue as going concern.
-
Christ Alone
Designs, no. If they focused on what the apostles focused on, namely help for the poor, sick, widowed, and orphaned they would be a better religion. They still would not be motivated solely based on love for Christ, since they've largely put him out of the picture. And they would still be 100% doctrinally wrong. They are a Jewish Christian religion that keeps Jesus in the background so they can focus on themselves (the gb).
As I've told other jws, "build a hospital, feed the hungry, support the poor, and then we'll talk abou you having the only true religion.
-
Deputy Dog
Christ Alone
“Modern Christianity” is the product of being “purpose driven” instead of being Spirit moved, and the idea was around long before Rick Warren. Being “purpose driven” is a humanist attempt at pleasing/impressing one’s self and others with the new morals we have adopted, instead of the grace of God, as if morality is God’s goal for humanity. It has very little to do with Glorifying God. It’s more about getting glory for the creature than The Creator. It’s about “feeling blessed”, instead of realizing the blessings Christ has given us (Eph 1:3). Where is our faith and what is it in? Most are more worried about feeling something than believing, and as we’ve seen, that’s not the same thing.
Sure science and reason have their place and we should stay informed, but I’ve got to say that the Gospel is not “reasonable”, it is glorious.
While I’ll agree that “the church is doctrinally weak today, it’s just a symptom of a larger problem.
-
PSacramento
PS- You have to see the correlation between these christian religions getting away from the earth being destroyed in a Judgement Day scenario and adopting the view that the earth will go on which necessitates becomeing a better steward. For a Orthodox Jew who does not believe in a afterlife, ala the Torah, and that this is it and what you do now benefits your future generations stewardship of the earth is a natural fit.
The Earth is NOT destroyed in Judgment day, it is made Better, New Heaven ( On Earth) and a New Earth.
Which "orthodox jews" don't believe in the after life?
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.
-
PSacramento
PS and CA- would you argue that if the JWs just emphasized Jehovah more they would be a better religion, better people and should continue as going concern.
I am not sure what you mean here...
-
Band on the Run
My problem is that I expect Christians to love one another and their neighbors. Good works should exist. The Church's constant alignment with political power caused many problems. It is impossibe to find Christ in the Inquisition, the Borgias, rampant corruption. It would be far better not to be an apologist for Christianity. There is nothing extraordinary about Christians. Other faiths provide health care. Christianity is far too Europe centric.
Acknowledging the shortcomings of Christians and resolving to work on concrete steps to apologize, make reparations, and set up actual procedures to bar future conduct is where the Church should be.
The bad things cannot be swept under a rug.
Christianity is not exceptional. It is my faith tradition. When Europe was in the Dark Ages, Islam had science and math. Their culture was far more impressive.
Christianity was more convincing before it became tied to ultra conservatism. One of the reasons most Europeans have much stricter separation of church and state is that the common people deplored the power of the priests and bishops. They aligned themselves with corrupt power. Ordinary people were crushed. Americans were able to view church as more beneficial. We were dissident churches looking for a haven. No one religion had power over a vast region.
-
PSacramento
Christians nowadays probably don't seem to impressive to Us, they certaibly aren't to me.
Of course when it started they did things that no one else was doing like taking care of the widows and orphans and the sick like lepers and such, to a degree that their charitabel works were acknowledge by even their critics.
Of course nowadays that is common for all people to do...
Good works catch on...
-
PSacramento
Personally it suprises me that people still being up the "dark ages", I thought that everyone had dropped that by now:
http://cliopolitical.blogspot.ca/2007/10/fallacy-of-unchanging-dark-ages.html
From wiki:
The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latinliterature. [ 3 ] [ 12 ] Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages (c. 11th–13th century), including the lack of Latin literature, and a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Later historians and writers picked up the concept, and popular culture has further expanded on it as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. [ 13 ]
The term "Dark Ages" was originally intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; the term "Middle Ages" has a similar motivation, implying an intermediate period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era. In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay. [ 6 ] The term is now never used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period; [ 10 ] when used, it is generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages. [ 1 ]
The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. [ 13 ] Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages, and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term "Dark Ages" was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" because of the scarcity of artistic and cultural output, [ 14 ] including historical records, when compared with both earlier and later times. [ 10 ]
The medieval period is frequently caricatured as supposedly a "time of ignorance and superstition" which placed "the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity." [ 43 ] However, rationality was increasingly held in high regard as the Middle Ages progressed. The historian of science Edward Grant, writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the 18th century], they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities". [ 44 ] Furthermore, David Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led". [ 45 ]
The caricature of the period is also reflected in a number of more specific notions. For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century [ 46 ] [ 47 ] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that all people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim is mistaken. [ 47 ] [ 48 ] In fact, lecturers in the medieval universities commonly advanced evidence in favor of the idea that the Earth was a sphere. [ 49 ] Lindberg and Ronald Numbers write: "There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference". [ 50 ]
Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all cited by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research. [ 51 ] They help maintain the idea of a "Dark Age" spanning through the medieval period.
Unlike pagan Rome, Christian Europe did not exercise a universal prohibition of the dissection and autopsy of the human body and such examinations were carried out regularly from at least the 13th century. [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] It has even been suggested that the Christian theology contributed significantly to the revival of human dissection and autopsy by providing a new socio-religious and cultural context in which the human cadaver was no longer seen as sacrosanct. [ 52 ]
-
designs
Speak to a Rabbi first and use wiki as a second source. The Torah does not mention an afterlife, this was a developed idea borrowed from other cultures which a Jew is free to believe or not but as any Orthodox Rabbi will tell you its not orthodox as in the Torah.
The other point was just a twist on the claim you and CA are making about more Jesus. Christianity is closer to the relic yard of history and none to soon.
Wiping out the human race to make the earth 'better', you and the Sociopath's Club would have a great time together.