First Weekend of March 2010, Christian Experiment?

[ajblaise]

heh, just realized what thread this is in.

Just imagine I was being less argumentative here. WWJD and all that.

 

[Laurie]

I thought you said you werent going to go off in this thread?

 

[ajblaise]

I thought you said you werent going to go off in this thread?

Yeah yeah.... I just said I didn't notice what thread this was.

Well, it's a good thing none of you Christians can judge me for this. Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Laurie]

I'm willing to be judged on how I post in threads. I sure judge you.

 

[ajblaise]

I'm willing to be judged on how I post in threads. I sure judge you.

Turn the other cheek?

 

[Ginkgo]

Well, don't say wrong things that you know aren't true.

Like "we Christians are now governed by the New Convenant, not the Old Convenant".

Just be consistent. Other than consistently wrong.

... Do you even have the smallest hint of an inkling of a modicum of a fathom of an idea as to what you're talking about? Or are you just trying to pick a fight?

 

[ajblaise]

... Do you even have the smallest hint of an inkling of a modicum of a fathom of an idea as to what you're talking about? Or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Well, he was wrong, not all Christians are governed just by the New Covenant.

And he knew it wasn't true.

Just lookin' for a fight, eh?

edit: who are you? btw.

 

[Sniffles]

Fundamentalists? Evangelicals and Protestants?

At best, those are the only forms of Christianity you have any knowledge of. As for more established forms of Christianity like Catholicism much less Orthodoxy or even mainline Protestantism, forget it. :rolli:

And what about when Jesus said these things about the OT's authority:

5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

- New International Version

Yes Christ came to fufill the Old Convenant, and upon his sacrifice it was fufilled and then on the new convenant took effect, as he himself stated:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Luke 22:19-20

Fail!

... Do you even have the smallest hint of an inkling of a modicum of a fathom of an idea as to what you're talking about? Or are you just trying to pick a fight?

That answer to that is quite clear. It's amazing how many times in the past I've had to pwn his ass on religious discussions. Most prominently in this thread where I cited source after source backing up my claims and all he could respond with his usual tactic of one-liners trying to dismiss it all as mere "apologetics". I also remember his desperate attempt to prove that the Rapture is a major element of Christian thinking, despite the fact I pointed out that only Dispensationalists believe in it and is not found in anyother Christian sect, and that before the 19th century no theologian ever talked of such a thing. He also likes to twist around the teachings of various Christian sects and try to pigeonhole them into the fundamentalist mold where it doesn't actually fit. I sincerely doubt he's even aware that fundamentalism is a late-comer to Christianity, originating largely in the 18th-19th centuries.

I have yet to see him make any real attempts at serious discussions on these kinds of issues, and this incident is no exception. Which is why overall his "arguments" are largely negligible in my view.

 

[ajblaise]

At best, those are the only forms of Christianity you have any knowledge of. As for more established forms of Christianity like Catholicism much less Orthodoxy, forget it. :rolli:

Catholicism is cool. I was one for a while.

But OT fundamentalism is far from dead, within Christianity. So it still applies to millions of Christians. And even Catholics read the OT and apply it.

Yes Christ came to fufill the Old Convenant, and upon his sacrifice it was fufilled and then on the new convenant took effect, as he himself stated:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Luke 22:19-20

Fail!

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

Oh wow, that's not ambiguous. This is your proof the OT is moot?


Maybe I'll start an authority of the OT thread sometime, but I won't argue it in this thread more.

I'm gonna WWJD it.

 

[Sniffles]

Catholicism is cool. I was one for a while.

Somehow I not surprised.

But OT fundamentalism is far from dead, within Christianity.

Like I said, every religious discussion is about fundamentalism with you. :rolli: You do realise there are other forms of religious expression, and that fundementalism is not even the most prominent form? You knew that right?

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

Oh wow, that's not ambiguous. This is your proof the OT is moot?

It's the best I'm willing to do for now, as I'm not going to waste too much time with you.

 

[ajblaise]

Like I said, every religious discussion is about fundamentalism with you. :rolli:

It's the only part I have an issue with. And extremes are always more interesting, who wants to talk about moderates? eww

 

[ajblaise]

Alright I feel like I have to be positive now.

Episcopalians rule!!!

 

[Sniffles]

It's the only part I have an issue with.

Uh huh sure.

 

[Laurie]

Isn't the ajblaise party in another thread?

(p.s. I think him saying Catholics are ok was his way of saying he is scared of you Peguy, wtg!)

 

[Totenkindly]

Much of the right side of the church relies too much on tradition for the sake of tradition and not tradition based upon the bible. I have no problems with tradition in and of itself. I think traditions can be very stabilizing, but they are not on par with with scripture.

I think many in the center want to avoid controversy and be broadly appealing. In their attempt to do so they break down the gospel to the most simplistic grounds and never develop an understanding of how the bible speaks to all aspects of life.

I think much of the left have the same concern as the center and desire to be relevant to society. My fear is that much of the left has abandoned the gospel altogether and ignores what scripture plainly teaches. The left want to be compassionate, but they surrender the truth.

I think this sums up my initial intuition as to why a TypologyCentral "church service" is never going to work.

There is a reason we have various denoms/parachurch orgs, and it's because in matters of scriptural interpretation and worship, people disagree strongly sometimes... and in terms of practice, people can't suck things up in a way that violates their religious conscience.

So perhaps religious interpretation/discussion threads can occur, but not a real "church service" per se; the act of filtering out the specifics of various beliefs will result in a general hodgepodge of religious thought and practice that still only appeal to one segment of the group.

Maybe we'll actually find a way to improve the Body of Christ somehow! (All in good faith of course.)

People have been trying to improve the Body of Christ for centuries.
...But we can't even agree on practical application of the word "love"
(especially in regards to behavior that one Christian might consider immoral and another does not.)

I think each generation needs to have fighters, who catalyze discussion and change, but you'd be better prepared to go the long haul and feel fulfilled in a role where you are a "voice calling from the wilderness." (And I'm not even trying to be pessimistic, just realistically this is what catalyzing voices have to deal with regardless of whether they are left or right of middle.)

1. The most disheartening thing about Christianity today is how artificially big, dysfunctional, and unloving it has become. Denominationalism has created dogmatism, clerical abuse of power, and inter-Christian conflict that distracts believers from helping our communities while simultaneously making us the laughing stock of the secular world. Compared to the intimate house churches of the first-century Christians, the outward structure of our modern faith is unrecognizable.

I think focusing on the personal intimate relationships would be far more productive than trying to inflict changes on a large public scale through the political arena, but there is a difference in methodology there that has to be overcome. Conservatism is used to being the "standard" in American culture and politics maybe up to the 1950's or so, and then things started to shift; conservatism by nature wants to maintain things as they are. A new conservatism won't be reflecting a multicultural society for years to come, maybe by the time Gen Y comes into true political/cultural power. (Right now we're still in the declining years of the Boomer phase, and Gen X is really starting to grab the reins.)

2. Society is always changing, and at least in America, it has seemed particularly malleable since 9/11. If this openness to change is just as true for groups within a society as it is for the society itself, now may very well be the time to finish what Martin Luther started: a return to faith based not in buildings or titles, but in relationships and love.

It's something to work for, but I'm more amazed at how 9/11 only really created a pendulum swing back in the other direction so quickly. The more change that occurs, the more resistance that will be raised.

Luther had his own issues (including self-flagellation), even if theologically his ideas were more sound. Even when we participate in transcendent ideas, we have trouble incorporating them in realistic ways into our own personal lives.

Yes Christ came to fulfill the Old Convenant, and upon his sacrifice it was fufilled and then on the new covenant took effect, as he himself stated:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Luke 22:19-20

Pretty much, I'm not sure why there is an argument on this point. And then aside from Jesus' comments, we get books like Hebrews talking about Jesus being the heir of Melchizadek, the legendary Jewish high priest, and thus drawing Old and New Covenant together as one.

I also remember his desperate attempt to prove that the Rapture is a major element of Christian thinking, despite the fact I pointed out that only Dispensationalists believe in it and is not found in any other Christian sect, and that before the 19th century no theologian ever talked of such a thing.

Ironic -- I just looked up Dispensationalism last week in a discussion with someone else, and I agree with you. I happened to be raised in groups that were Dispensationalist or on the fringes of the heated Rapture debates (although at the time I just thought they were representative of all Christians), so it's sort of refreshing when I had realized there were portions of the Church that just really didn't get hung up on it.

I think the popularization of the Left Behind series (by Dispensationalist Tim LaHaye -- ironically again, of "four temperament/humor" personality theory) made the Rapture seem far more pervasive in Christianity than it is actually treated. At the church I last went to, the clergy regularly avoided the topic (as not as pertinent to anything), but a preponderance of the members personally seemed absorbed in it.

 

[Beorn]

I think this sums up my initial intuition as to why a TypologyCentral "church service" is never going to work.

What exactly is it in my post that you are pointing at?

There is a reason we have various denoms/parachurch orgs, and it's because in matters of scriptural interpretation and worship, people disagree strongly sometimes... and in terms of practice, people can't suck things up in a way that violates their religious conscience.

So perhaps religious interpretation/discussion threads can occur, but not a real "church service" per se; the act of filtering out the specifics of various beliefs will result in a general hodgepodge of religious thought and practice that still only appeal to one segment of the group.

I'm in favor of denominationalism. For the same reasons. More importantly I don't think people should have to suck things up for the sake of community when it comes to critical issues like the sacraments. I mean you simply cannot have a local church where half the people believe that babies should be baptized and the others don't... let alone differences in the reason and purpose of baptism.

I didn't realize this was supposed to be some sort of "online church." I don't think you can have such a thing, because you can't have church in the proper local sense without the administering of the sacraments.

Nor did I think this was going to be anything on par with a church bible study/small group/cell group whatever you want to call it. Because typically in those situations there is someone designated with authority not just for organizational purposes, but for teaching purposes as well. Here everyone would be equal.

All I thought this was going to be was a group of people who generally associate themselves with the christian faith meeting together online to discuss scripture and other christian writings on some sort of scheduled basis without the kind of trolling evident in this very thread.

I think focusing on the personal intimate relationships would be far more productive than trying to inflict changes on a large public scale through the political arena,

I think this a false choice between the two. What would be terribly effective is if we had both. Of course that means if we are going to build relationships while being politically involved we must practice meekness and try not to come off as ignorant blowhards. I have seen Christian individuals and political groups achieve this.

RE: Rapture/Dispy stuff

First of all I am a protestant evangelical and I think belief in the rapture is borderline laughable.

I think there are far reaching effects of belief in dispy theology (see the conservative view of Israel and our political relations with them). The problem is that most protestant evangelicals, largely non-denoms, are dispensationalists without even knowing it. Which is really unfortunate and sad since dispensationalism is a hermeneutic view. Hermeneutics are kind of important since they are "the study of the study of the bible" or the lens through which you study and understand the Bible. So many people have a view of the bible without even knowing what that view is or the fact that, as Peguy pointed out, their view has only been around for 100 years.

Even within my own presbyterian denomination I would not be surprised if say 10-15% of regular attendees believed in the rapture despite our denom's stated doctrinal position on the matter. Thanks Tim Lahaye.

 

[Mycroft]

Peguy, considering the number of times the poverty of the philosophical underpinnings of your system of beliefs has been plainly demonstrated by SW (and others), you've what's referred to in common parlance as some nerve to cop that attitude with ajblaise.

 

[Mole]

It seems appropriate to have a Bible Study Group, just is it is appropriate to have a Madrassa to study jihad and martyrdom, just as it is appropriate, as we have, an MBTI Study Group.

For there is no more evidence for Zeus, Poseidon, the Trinity or Allah than there is for MBTI.

 

[TopherRed]

Wow. Hey, I have an idea...let's just try it and see what happens. Sure, chaos is likely, but not definite. Who cares whether it will work or won't, if the OP wants to try a service on TypeC, I say go for it. Maybe it'll give the Christians on here a place to stand and be counted, rather than being shunned or made fun of.

 

[Mole]

Wow. Hey, I have an idea...let's just try it and see what happens. Sure, chaos is likely, but not definite. Who cares whether it will work or won't, if the OP wants to try a service on TypeC, I say go for it. Maybe it'll give the Christians on here a place to stand and be counted, rather than being shunned or made fun of.

Yes, it would be nice to have Christians stand up and be counted. Just as it would be nice to have Catholics stand up and be counted. Just as it would be nice to have Orthodox stand up and be counted. Just as it would be nice to have Islamists stand up and be counted. And it would be nice to have Judaism, Jainism and Hinduism as well, not to mention Zen.

But if we all stand up to be counted, there will be no one sitting down.