• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity must change or die

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Πολυπέρχων Γʹ;3146760 said:
How supremely arrogant of liberals and religion-revisionists to demand that Christianity change to suit their wishes.
How supremely arrogant of Jesus and the apostles to demand that Judaism change to suit their wishes...
How supremely arrogant of the Pharisees to demand that Temple Judaism change to suit their wishes...
How supremely arrogant of Moses to come down off the mountain with an armload of rules that changed things...
How supremely arrogant of God to become Incarnate and change things...

Unfortunately, spirituality is a dynamic, not a static, thing.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Yes it does, but the trinity is not mentioned much before 300 AD right?

That is actually a good question, one with many varying ideas. Some have pushed it all the way into the OT, which simply is foolish. Gerald O'Collins makes a better argument (I think it still is off), that the Trinity was anticipated in the OT. And really, what he is getting at is a binitarian idea that can be seen in Hebrew scripture (such as the personification of Wisdom, but still being equated with God, or as some have suggested, as a facet of God). Daniel Boyarin makes a wonderful case for this binitarian idea of God, and locating it in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even though he has been criticized, most of the critics have agreed with the basic assumption that there is a binitarian view of God. That doesn't seem to be debated.

In some sense, Paul takes up this view as well. The major change we see is that the Spirit takes a larger role and surpasses the idea of Wisdom. But Paul actually hands to us the Triadic formula (father, son, holy Spirit), and it is quite clear that he is using a formula that predates him. So from very early on, there is some sense with bringing the three ideas together.

Tertullian was the first to use the idea of the Trinity (or the terminology) right around the third century. He also gives us the basic formula of 3 persons, 1 substance. But then Tertullian is using earlier ideas.

So the timeline is somewhat messy. But it can be seen as an idea that slowly progresses, and in fact, has continued to progress.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Actually it is not. There is plenty of Jewish material on this out there. The reality of your "Jewish theology of the time" - is the sect becoming mixed with the Greek ideas. The original Elohiym are probably the God and Goddess - then the switch to one male god.
Actually it is. Even if the Jewish theology of that time was becoming mixed with Greek ideas (which is something I have already stated) it still is Jewish theology. The idea of the original Elohim really has no bearing on the current discussion as we are talking about Second Temple Judaism, and Elohim was fully recognized, by that time, to be God.

Daniel Boyarin, again a respected Jewish scholar, makes a great argument for a binitarian view of God. And if we look at the OT, especially the Wisdom tradition, we see this clearly. Wisdom, which is an aspect of God, is seen as also a different entity. That falls into this idea.
Any of them that they use to preach that theology. And of course it goes back to the early church. The Nicene Councils were fighting over Iesous being god, or just a man. And that alone tells us the original Hebrew idea was that the messiah would be a MAN, and a group broke from this Torah truth.
Again, with out specific verses, I can't really make a good response as you may be thinking of different verses.

The Council of Nicene though wasn't debating about whether or not Jesus was God. That was accepted by all parties. What was being debated is the context of this idea.

And the original Hebrew idea wasn't just one idea, but a multiplicity of ideas. In fact, we see many different ideas about the idea of the Messiah. Some thought it was a warrior messiah, others a priestly messiah, others with two messiahs, etc.

More so, there was also another figure, the Son of Man figure, whose idea does fit here as well. Now, the idea also evolves over time, but it was associated by some to be included with the idea of the Messiah.

So it really isn't as simple as you are trying to play it off as.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
BTW, None of the behaviors that the OP accuses Christians of being intolerant of are new phenomenons. Christians and the Jews before them have existed for thousands of years without having to compromise their morals in order to "fit in with the times".
 

sportinnc

Member
I guess I'm what most of you would call an arrogant and anti-progression Christian. My belief is that Christianity the religion has changed, and probably will change multiple times in the future. However, my opinion is that truth is absolute, God is absolute, and timeless. The "Christianity" of today is created by man, and it is molded around current social customs. This is wrong and completely against what God, the deity apart from man, who is not subject to time or man's desires, wants. God is not a figment of man's imagination, and thus is not someone who is subject to man.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
BTW, None of the behaviors that the OP accuses Christians of being intolerant of are new phenomenons. Christians and the Jews before them have existed for thousands of years without having to compromise their morals in order to "fit in with the times".
So Christianity and Judaism have not changed in thousands of years? That simply is false.

One of the best examples for Christianity is the issue of slavery. It was this central issue that tore churches apart because of a disagreement on whether or not slavery should be tolerated, or not. Some churches, those that supported slavery, did in fact, later, compromise their morals in order to "fit in with the times." It took them some time, but they in fact did. And then they did again when segregation was deemed immoral. And many churches are now doing so because the anti-gay rhetoric that used to be a common "moral" for Christians is being reevaluated, and many churches are "compromising their morals" and becoming more tolerant.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I guess I'm what most of you would call an arrogant and anti-progression Christian. My belief is that Christianity the religion has changed, and probably will change multiple times in the future. However, my opinion is that truth is absolute, God is absolute, and timeless. The "Christianity" of today is created by man, and it is molded around current social customs. This is wrong and completely against what God, the deity apart from man, who is not subject to time or man's desires, wants. God is not a figment of man's imagination, and thus is not someone who is subject to man.
I'm not convinced that there is Deity "apart from man." God has no hands but ours, and all that.

IMO, even the earliest Xy -- Jesus and the Twelve -- was "made up" by a human Jesus and human apostles after him, in much the same way that you imagine modern xy to be "reinvented." and I imagine that God is no more and no less involved in that process now than God was then.
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
A Modern Reformation of Christianity Articles « Belzian Educational Foundation

Christianity is a religion that has survived and flourished for nearly two thousand years. Through these years, it has changed, branched off, and evolved into what can be described as multiple Christianities. At the same time, much of Christianity has become stuck in the past, unwilling to change or improve. In the name of Christianity, atrocities are still committed, and intolerance justified. There are some forms of Christianity that has set out to rectify these wrongs; however, there are also those that refuse to make the changes that they need to. These forms of Christianity are now at a cross roads, in which they can choose to change for the better and continue into the 21st century, as respectable institutions, or they can slowly die out, leaving behind a legacy of intolerance, and disgust.

Before moving further though, it has to be realized that there is no single, defining form of Christianity. The religion, as would be expected, has changed many times throughout the course of its life, evolving into something better defined as multiple Christianities. Within this spectrum of Christianities, we see a vast variety of beliefs. We have on one side, those who see the Bible as infallible, the very word of God, and their form of Christianity as the only way. On the other side, we have those who see the Bible as an important historical or literary work, written by various different men for different reasons, and their form of Christianity only being one among many true ways.

This is important to realize as Christianity is extremely diverse. One form of Christianity does not define another form. What one group of Christians believe, is not necessarily what all Christians believe. By grouping all Christians together, one does an injustice to those Christians actively trying to make a difference, as well as isolate others who would have otherwise been willing to try to make matters better.

When I use the term Christianity in rest of this essay, I am referring to Christianity in general terms. I recognize that many Christians, and various forms of Christianities have already began changing for the better. I am not addressing those forms when I use the term Christianity. Instead, I am referring to the forms of Christianity that refuse to change, and insist of justifying intolerance, narrow mindedness, and unquestioning blind faith.

It should then be obvious as to why Christianity must change. The justification of intolerance is more than enough reason for a change to be made. It should be no surprise then that we see one of the major complaints about Christianity being that it is an intolerant religion. I see no better example than the consistent protests that are seen in European countries when the Pope visits. Without fail, we see charges of intolerance being leveled at the Church with each visit. Intolerance towards homosexuals, and the intolerance towards women (in the form of refusing to ordain women), are issues that are brought up repeatedly when the Pope goes to visit. This is clearly a sign that there is a major backlash against this intolerance that is being condoned and justified by a religion.

It is not just the intolerance towards groups of individuals that is the problem though. It is also the narrow minded thinking that many Christians, and in general the religious, are guilty of. The idea that “my way is the only right way” needs to be abandoned. The condemnation of an eternity in hell, for those who choose to believe in a way different than ones own, needs to be abandoned. Such a position is arrogant, and foolish. It shows the exact opposite of what Jesus said was one of the most important commandments; that is to love one's neighbor. One can not truly love their neighbor and at the same time condemn them to hell.

To have a god that condemns the vast majority of individuals to hell simply is not a loving god. It is a god full of hatred, and simply is pitiful. God does not have to be that way. One can truly believe in an all loving God, and still be true to their religion. One can believe in a God who is not so spiteful that it would send those who do not believe in it to hell for eternity (even though that God refuses to supply any evidence for it's existence, but relies on the follower to have faith). What it really comes down to though is the acceptance of others. It is becoming a little more humble, and acknowledging that they are not some extremely special individual that has been granted one of the few places in heaven. What is needed is for Christians to stop being so arrogant, so self-centered, that they believe only they are good enough to be worthy of all of God's love. Really, it means maturing.

It also means though that one should feel free to challenge their beliefs, and not just simply follow them blindly. When a religion is so easily used to justify atrocious acts, that religion needs to be questioned, and challenged. But even more so, the leaders, and member of that religion that allow their religion to be violated in such a disgusting manner, need to be challenged, and possibly removed from any form of power.

Christianity needs to be challenged. It needs to be questioned. It needs to change. For too long individuals have been allowed to hide behind a religion in order to justify their own intolerant beliefs. That is simply unacceptable, and should not be allowed any longer. And the people who must change this are other Christians. Christians can no longer allow others to sully the name of the faith they follow as well. They need to be the ones who instigate this change, that is long over due. It is no longer acceptable to simply stand aside and allow other Christians to continue to portray Christianity as a disgusting, and perverse belief system.

Or perhaps it is dying because it changed too much ?
 

sportinnc

Member
I'm not convinced that there is Deity "apart from man." God has no hands but ours, and all that.

IMO, even the earliest Xy -- Jesus and the Twelve -- was "made up" by a human Jesus and human apostles after him, in much the same way that you imagine modern xy to be "reinvented." and I imagine that God is no more and no less involved in that process now than God was then.

Well I guess I can try to prove it to you, although I have serious doubts that I can convince you even if I provide logical evidence. Be forewarned this will be a ridiculously long argument. Do you still want it?

As to your other argument, Jesus was not just a human, He was both fully human and fully divine. Furthermore, Jesus never defined his followers as "Christians." The word wasn't used until after his death. Jesus didn't define a religion, He exhorted a way of life and commanded those who He taught to follow principles he laid out in order for them to receive eternal life.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Well I guess I can try to prove it to you, although I have serious doubts that I can convince you even if I provide logical evidence. Be forewarned this will be a ridiculously long argument. Do you still want it?

As to your other argument, Jesus was not just a human, He was both fully human and fully divine. Furthermore, Jesus never defined his followers as "Christians." The word wasn't used until after his death. Jesus didn't define a religion, He exhorted a way of life and commanded those who He taught to follow principles he laid out in order for them to receive eternal life.

Yet, if one only follows the principles that Jesus laid out, we would have extremely little, and in fact, much of Christian doctrine can't be found in what Jesus said. More so, he was preaching a Jewish message, so the entire Christian idea, if we rely on just Jesus, is foolish.

Jesus laid a foundation for a religion that would be under constant redefinement.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well I guess I can try to prove it to you, although I have serious doubts that I can convince you even if I provide logical evidence. Be forewarned this will be a ridiculously long argument. Do you still want it?

As to your other argument, Jesus was not just a human, He was both fully human and fully divine. Furthermore, Jesus never defined his followers as "Christians." The word wasn't used until after his death. Jesus didn't define a religion, He exhorted a way of life and commanded those who He taught to follow principles he laid out in order for them to receive eternal life.
You didn't actually read my post, did you?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yet, if one only follows the principles that Jesus laid out, we would have extremely little, and in fact, much of Christian doctrine can't be found in what Jesus said. More so, he was preaching a Jewish message, so the entire Christian idea, if we rely on just Jesus, is foolish.

Jesus laid a foundation for a religion that would be under constant redefinement.

This ^^^
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Or, rather it's 'so-called Christians' [ Christendom ] say Jesus is God.

Scripture teaches Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. - Rev. 3 v 14.

God had No beginning.- Psalm 90 v 2
Only God was before the beginning.
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Also the "logos" isn't Iesous. The word is creation through the Law/God.

John 1, when read in the Greek, doesn't actually say Iesous is God. Nor does Iesous say he is God.

It seems to be talking about creation as a whole and the "indwelling" that gives life to human clay. John 1:1-4 says Something like -

1 Within the First Estate/Principle exists the (incantation)/Divine command/Computation/law, and the Divine command/Computation/law exists within the Divinity, and the Divinity exists as the Divine command/Computation/law.

2 The same, exists within the First Estate/Principle (as) within the Divinity.
3 All through It came into being; and separate from its existence not one came to being.
4 Within itself life(spark) existed; and the life(spark) existed to manifest/illuminate the Anthropos/human being.
If you look at Genesis the Elohiym (God and Goddess?) create everything. Then around Gen 2:4 it switches to YHVH Elohiym = YHVH of the Elohiym.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Also the "logos" isn't Iesous. The word is creation through the Law/God.
John 1, when read in the Greek, doesn't actually say Iesous is God. Nor does Iesous say he is God.
It seems to be talking about creation as a whole and the "indwelling" that gives life to human clay. John 1:1-4 says Something like -
1 Within the First Estate/Principle exists the (incantation)/Divine command/Computation/law, and the Divine command/Computation/law exists within the Divinity, and the Divinity exists as the Divine command/Computation/law.
2 The same, exists within the First Estate/Principle (as) within the Divinity.
3 All through It came into being; and separate from its existence not one came to being.
4 Within itself life(spark) existed; and the life(spark) existed to manifest/illuminate the Anthropos/human being.
If you look at Genesis the Elohiym (God and Goddess?) create everything. Then around Gen 2:4 it switches to YHVH Elohiym = YHVH of the Elohiym.

Who creates at Genesis 1 v 26 ?_________

First of all, only God [YHWH or YHVH] was before the beginning. [Psalm 90 v 2]
Jesus [Iesous] was Not before the beginning as YHVH was before the beginning.
Jesus never claims to be Jehovah. Iesous never claims to be YHVH.

The title Adhonai simply means: Sovereign Lord.
The title Elohim simply means: God.
God is not a personal or proper name but a title.
Which God or god would apply to YHVH ?
The Tetragrammaton [YHWH/YHVH] in the Hebrew is a personal name.
The four letters of the Tetragrammaton's vowel points have been read as Yehwah, Yehwih, Yehowah, and generally favored or accepted as Yahweh, and from the Latin the most common accepted in English as Jehovah.
Jesus' name in the Greek is Iesous, but in the Hebrew Jesus' name as Yehohshua.
 

ErikErik

Member
Or perhaps it is dying because it changed too much ?

Exactly. Just like the Holy Scriptures have been diluted because of too much changes. Too many liberal "christians" and liberal professors claiming and teaching that God's word is not completely inspired or inerrant and thus have paved the way to younger people and unbelievers buying into this lie.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Exactly. Just like the Holy Scriptures have been diluted because of too much changes. Too many liberal "christians" and liberal professors claiming and teaching that God's word is not completely inspired or inerrant and thus have paved the way to younger people and unbelievers buying into this lie.

LOL! I for one won't be taking talking donkeys, talking snakes, giant fish swallowing a man and spitting him out alive days later, birds taking care of a man, the noah's ark story, etc, as fact.

Reasoning minds need to discuss what is in the Bible, and what it actually means, and what parts are teaching stories.
 

ErikErik

Member
LOL! I for one won't be taking talking donkeys, talking snakes, giant fish swallowing a man and spitting him out alive days later, birds taking care of a man, the noah's ark story, etc, as fact.

Reasoning minds need to discuss what is in the Bible, and what it actually means, and what parts are teaching stories.

Then you'll never understand the miracles of God.
 
Top