Posts by awildflower

Godlensky, this was a FANTASTIC read. You are a great writer and thank you so much for sharing it. I actually forwarded it to my mom. Very touching!

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

awildflower

Awildflower, you are forcing me to quote:

Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I'm not sure I would interpret that the same as you.

Regarding the word "Christian." I really don't understand your prejudice against it.

Why do you call yourself "awildflower?"

Why do you call yourself by any name at all?

You make a valid point. Awildflower serves a purpose but it's not "who" I am, my essence can't be named. "Christian" serves a purpose. I was just trying to understand the purpose and if what they claim is the purpose made since to me.

I'm not "prejudiced" against it, but wanted people to understand that you could live by Jesus example without a title, billions of people do.

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

awildflower

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

You get "start an earth wide religion for me" from that? The Great Commission I'm assuming is "to go therefore and make disciples"? What is your definition of "make disciples"? Washing the feet, is a lesson, not a "church rule" he made up.

And I thought about what you and Tec have said about not being ashamed to be called a Christian. Is this true even with the bad rap Christianity/Religion gets? Even if it turns people away from the man you want them to recognize? Ok then WHY the title? What purpose does it serve really?

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

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?

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

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.

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

awildflower

Well PSac, then why don't you call yourself "Love" if that is really the essence of your belief here and you understand the controversy of the "Christian" title. Why not just walk around saying "I am love". If I heard someone say that, I would immediately think something very positive of that one and want to know more. That is if I needed some sort of title or when I met someone needed know that they had a title. Sticking to the word Christian is no different then , "I'm Islamic" or "I'm baptist", "I'm Mormon". When we hear those titles, before we even consider who the person is, we immediately conjure up in our minds what we know about that title. Because that's most human nature we could help that by changing these titles or better yet not carrying them at all. I'm pretty sure Jesus never meant to make a religion out of himself, man did that. I understand you have a deep love and admiration for him and our proud to call yourself Christian, but it's not necessary if you are living the essence of his teachings, IMHO.

P.S. Didn't mean to bold that post, LOL.

53

"Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perish"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

why christianity must adapt -- or perish.

there is a fundamental question facing christian sects in america, an ideological distinction that cleaves the many churches into two different camps: is it better to fit the church and christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?

put more bluntly, whose vision of the future of christianity is correct: the conservative, literal baptists or the modern, liberal episcopalians?

awildflower

PSac, it's hard for me to explain but I'll try. If you truly got the essence of Jesus as you say, then why on earth would you bare a title that he himself never did? The title "Christian" makes Jesus and all he was, look bad, IMO. When I hear the word "Christian" my mind immediately goes to religion and NOT Jesus, whom I don't have a problem with btw. Having a title of Christian, or any title for that matter, immediately divides people because then you have the "not Christians". I feel like Jesus wouldn't like this divisiveness over one little word. Why do Christians feel the need to say, "hey look at me, I believe Jesus was the Christ, but hey look at me, I live a debauched life anyways" (SOME). What's the point. If you get the essence of Jesus teachings, to me "Christians" would be a lot more silent about it and a lot more living by example.

And all that stuff about, we are sinners and that's why God came as Jesus, and we can never measure up, etc........I'm so sick of that stuff. It gives me a bad feeling inside, it doesn't feel like love AT all, does that really make you feel better about life? Always being reminded that your a sinner and you can't possibly make your own life and just learn from different lessons without the fear of punishment. Good lord, I don't act like that with my kids. Everything is just lessons. When you know better you do better.

I know it sounds like I'm putting you down but I'm really not. I just feel like underneath all the titles there is sooooo much more depth that people don't realize. It's all part of the journey.