Jethro Bodine
You have made a very serious mistake of judgment by deciding you're abandoning 'Christianity' and, inevitably, influencing others to do the same. There are still those of us who do represent it accurately and until the last of us is gone you have no right to decide that Christianity has a new definition and can now, therefore, turn it over to the dogs. None whatsoever.
Thou protests too much.
You fail to see the difference between abandonment and realization. If I had said it differently, making it a distinction between true Christianity and false Christianity as you do, you would have jumped on that bandwagon. Providing I agreed with you as to the nature of true Christianity. You said, “There are still those of us who do represent it accuratelyâ€. Implying that you represent true Christianity. That remains to be seen.
You give me more credit than I deserve. I have influenced no one to do anything so far as I know. I do not, indeed, can not, bring up in real life anything I’ve said on this forum. If for no other reason than I’d have to find another Christian Church to attend. Eventually one runs out of Churches. I hope you can at least distinguish the difference between real life and a forum.
I did not decide on a new definition of Christianity.
Christianity “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.†(Oxford Dictionary) “A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior; The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia)â€. (WordWeb)
That seems to about cover it. I agree with the definitions of both dictionaries. You’re the one who would redefine Christianity to suit your own meaning, as one who is “accurately representing†Christianity. Christianity is far more comprehensive than your narrow definition of just those who agree with you as to who’s accurately representing Christianity. Roman Catholics claim to be the True Church. And by so doing they are saying that they are the ones who are accurately representing Christianity. You’re doing the same thing as the Catholics. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mormons, and any other Christian denomination that thinks it’s accurately representing Christianity.
"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:16 NIV1984)
1Peter 4:15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that verse in its context? Peter was contrasting two different reasons to suffer. The contrast is between suffering for evil doing and suffering for following a name associated with Jesus of Nazareth. I agree with Peter. If one suffers as a Christian, that’s no reason to be ashamed. Not because of what Christianity is or isn’t, but because of what non-Christians think Christianity is. Not because of what being a Christian is or isn’t, but because of what non-Christians think being a Christian is. And believe you me, neither you nor I could ever live up to their ideal.
You are doing more harm to the cause of Christ than any good you think you may be doing.
I’m harming the cause of Christ because I claim that Christianity is a man-made religion and denominational in character? Or is it Christianity that’s harming the cause of Christ because it can’t change its nature? What harms the cause of Christ the most is ignorance. For whatever reason that ignorance exists. It’s THE truth that sets us free, not your truth, nor my truth.
What you should be doing is helping people understand what the true defining beliefs and lifestyle of the 'Christian' is, not letting pagans have it and redefine it.
By saying that, you obviously don’t think that I’m helping people understand what the true defining beliefs and lifestyle of the 'Christian' Based on what? What I claim Christianity to be? Or what you, as one who represents true Christianity, claims Christianity to be? My emphasis has always been that Christians, “real Christians†as you would define them, should express the supernatural they believe in, rather than the natural that they are expressing now. And on the bible being understood supernaturally, rather than naturally through a practice of biblical interpretation. And on walking by the Spirit, rather than being made perfect by the flesh. I suppose to you these don’t count because of your antipathy toward the idea that Christianity perhaps isn’t all you think it is. That Christianity is what it is because of Christians. All of them. Not just the ones who don’t agree with you. Christianity isn’t an entity of its own with its own life. The life of Christianity is what you see within it. That includes you. It also includes the gay Christians. Welcome to the real world.
By definition, Christianity is one community. One community divided into many sub-communities called denominations. And the sub-communities you approve of isn’t all there is.
You have made a very, very serious error. You're grinding an ax against those who have offended you and failed the name of Christ, but at the expense of the good name of Christ and his true followers.
No one has offended me. No one is free of offending the name of Christ. Not you, not I. Try to at least make a half an effort to understand that. I will not be defined by your terms.
I count myself one with Christians who realize that they are sinners, saved sinners, sinners that are still struggling with the sin within them. Christians who have a sense of their own sinfulness. Do you think you’re perfect now that you’re a Christian? That I should follow you? If you’re the true representative of Christianity as you claim, then you should know that the only one a “true Christian†should follow is Jesus Christ. In the view I present, that’s very basic to expressing the supernatural.
I live in the Bible belt and am in period of spiritual change and transition myself. Don't know what to do just yet. My church is transitioning toward a more evangelistic ministry (as opposed to a 'church' for all of God's people in their various stations of faith and development) and I'm not sure where I'm going to fit in
Why don’t you try fitting in where you are? Here you are judging me for abandonment, when you’re getting ready to do the same thing. What do you think that’s doing for the cause of Christ? And don’t deceive yourself into thinking your situation is nothing like mine. You’ll only hurt yourself.
While it's true we are indeed free to attend or not attend any one church, the decision to leave a church you have become connected to should not be made flippantly or without careful consideration.
Now that at least is something I can agree with. When I made the decision to become a former Christian, it wasn’t just off the top of my head. There was an important decision to make, and I eventually made it. After that I had to make a decision as to how I was going to fulfill the requirement of community, in view of the fact that the meetings of Christianity Churches are all that exist today. I eventually chose a particular Christian Church to attend for that particular purpose. It doesn’t conform to my own understanding of how things are supposed to be. Anymore than any other Christian Church. Nor am I conforming to their understanding of how things are supposed to be. But I will not leave it just because it doesn’t come up to my standards. Unless a true expression of the meetings of the ekklesia begins to exist. I see no reason to believe that will happen in my lifetime. Historically, it’s a rare occurrence for the same reason Christianity continues to exist in all its denominational splendor. Human nature.
Mt 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
I’ve seen you use that verse on others. Can you apply it to yourself?
FC
