Liberal Christianity & its killer instinct

[jasonc]

Being only 50 or 60 years old, it's newer than, for example, John Wesley's "holy clubs" or the charismatic manifestations of the "Great Awakening" of the 1730s.

Or the azure street revival.still 1960 isn't young.we are registering historiCal buildings of that time.hard to believe

 

[Jim Parker]

Or the azure street revival.still 1960 isn't young.we are registering historiCal buildings of that time.hard to believe

Interesting that the Azuza Street revival was in the same year as the San Francisco earthquake.
Coincidence?

Iakov the fool

24 bottles of beer in a case. 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[jasonc]

Probably.it's a shame that men divided after it.

 

[jasonc]

Interesting that the Azuza Street revival was in the same year as the San Francisco earthquake.
Coincidence?

Iakov the fool

24 bottles of beer in a case. 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not.

True,but to bad men let the enemy in.

 

[Mike S]

The charismatic catholic movement isn't new. I attended those meetings almost 20 years ago

Jason, 20 year ago? Seriously? That's like yesterday.

OK, alright, I'm an old guy. My kids tell me rocks don't even live that long.

BTW, get off my lawn.

 

[jasonc]

Jason, 20 year ago? Seriously? That's like yesterday.

OK, alright, I'm an old guy. My kids tell me rocks don't even live that long.

BTW, get off my lawn.

It was around before that. Ww2 isnt long ago. My dad ,mom were born just after that. Yet it's in history books.age of the beholder makes it seem recent or old.

 

[Mike]

Please consider the Forum Guidelines when posting. This is the A&T forum. Thank you.

There was no change after WIP said this, but OzSpen you really didn't come in the OP with a point that you were defending. It's more of a discussion. No problem there, but this probably needs to be moved to a forum for discussion.

 

[OzSpen]

Please consider the Forum Guidelines when posting. This is the A&T forum. Thank you.

I do wish you would be specific to the 'Guidelines' to which you refer.

 

[OzSpen]

There was no change after WIP said this, but OzSpen you really didn't come in the OP with a point that you were defending. It's more of a discussion. No problem there, but this probably needs to be moved to a forum for discussion.

I have only now read what WIP wrote followed by what you wrote, so it was impossible for me to make the adjustments you required. I cannot respond in the way you want when WIP wasn't specific and he didn't refer to the specific point he was making.

I can't read your or WIP's minds in this matter.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Christianity integrated with Buddhism is like cross-breeding a Cocker-Spaniel with a dinner plate.

Buddhism is a religion which has as its purpose to bring the practitioner to the realization that there is only one entity in existence and everything is that entity. Where there is only one entity in existence there is no possibility of communion (there's no "other" with which to commune) or of Love since the only thing to love is itself and that is not love. The end (destination) of Budhism is to be absorbed into the "one."

Christianity is firmly founded in the concept of communion; even God is a kind of "community" of three existing in perfect, mutual love.
The purpose of Christianity is to bring about the perfect, loving, communion of individuals with one another and with God.
The end (destination) of Christianity is the intimacy of becoming one flesh (symbolized by marriage) with another who is God in Christ.

There can be no such "integration" unless the integrator is certifiably insane. (or, perhaps, just an ass)

iakov the fool

Jim,

That's a powerful insight. Thank you for sharing it. I liked your analogy of integration of Buddhism and Christianity as cross-breeding a Cocker-Spaniel with a dinner place.

What makes it even more stark is that modern Buddhism does not believe that God created the universe and rules it. See HERE.

If atheism means the absence of belief in gods, then many Buddhists are atheists. 'The historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic' (Barbara O'Brien, about religion).

In my understanding, for any Christian to want to accommodate Buddhism with Christianity is whistling in the wind. The two are incompatible and will never be successfully integrated. However, this is a demonstration of the depth to which liberal Christianity will go to look as though it is reaching out to other religions.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No. Should it be saved? No. It is simply False Christianity.

I'm of the view that the sooner it dies, the better it will be for vital Christianity. You call it false Christianity. I'll go a step further and designate it as promoting heretical Christianised beliefs.

Oz

 

[Mike S]

In my understanding, for any Christian to want to accommodate Buddhism with Christianity is whistling in the wind. The two are incompatible and will never be successfully integrated. However, this is a demonstration of the depth to which liberal Christianity will go to look as though it is reaching out to other religions.

Oz

It's what happens when churches pretend that Jesus was a good moral man, a good teacher, and nothing else. It's what happens when churches don't want to talk about the divinity of Jesus, and the redemptive value of his death and resurrection. If Christianity is nothing more than another set of moral values, a good guide to live your life by, then there is, indeed, no difference between it and Buddhism.

 

[OzSpen]

It's what happens when churches pretend that Jesus was a good moral man, a good teacher, and nothing else. It's what happens when churches don't want to talk about the divinity of Jesus, and the redemptive value of his death and resurrection. If Christianity is nothing more than another set of moral values, a good guide to live your life by, then there is, indeed, no difference between it and Buddhism.

It most often begins with historical criticism, doubting the integrity of Scripture, rejecting some of the essentials of the Gospel. You are correct that this often involves the downgrade of the divinity of Jesus and the vicarious atonement and bodily resurrection.

I agree that for this kind of christianity, it becomes a social club promoting good values that include social works in the community. In my country, such churches have extensive counselling and social programs, often funded by the govt. I used to be a counselling manager for one such program.

So, such a christianised program would have no problem integrating with Buddhism because genuine Christianity has disappeared from the radar.

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Liberal Christianity can be seen in severl directions. Besides syncretism of faiths mentioned through out this thread there is those christians who want to blend the bible and evolutionism. When that happens verses such as Romans 5:12 have to be re-written.
The instructions for women in Church as seen in 1st Tim 2 becomes based upon a parable rather than a historical event.

 

[Jim Parker]

Besides syncretism of faiths mentioned through out this thread there is those christians who want to blend the bible and evolutionism. When that happens verses such as Romans 5:12 have to be re-written.

"Evolutionism" is a notion invented by people who don't understand "evolution" and fear that it will undermine the teaching of scripture. It is a bogyman.
Evolution is a discipline that uses scientific methods to discover facts.
Original Sin (or Ancestral Sin) is not a fact that can proven or disproven by application of scientific methods. It is not possible to set up an experiment to see if the experimental Adam and Eve will again disobey and then repeat the experiment over and over to verify that they always do.
The study of evolution is a science. God, and all that He has done, does, and will do, are not subject to scientific investigation.
No scientific research can undermine the teaching of Scripture. (Though it might undermine people's opinions about what those teachings are.)

On the other hand, there are those who call themselves Christians who actually think, because of what evolutionary investigation has discovered, that we must understand the Bible to be a book of mythology because "science has proven theology wrong."

Both views are false. Science cannot prove theology to be wrong and theology cannot prove science to be wrong. IMHO

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic'

Exactly.
A Buddhist may use the word "god" but Buddhism does not have a personal god.
While Christianity leads its believers to an eternal, joyful, communal feast/festival with God and with every last bit of creation, Buddhism leads its followers to an eternal nothingness in which there is no "other" with which to have communion and there is neither joy nor sorrow not any other such experience. Buddhism leads it's devotees into what is a perfect example of hell.

iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

"Evolutionism" is a notion invented by people who don't understand "evolution" and fear that it will undermine the teaching of scripture. It is a bogyman.
Evolution is a discipline that uses scientific methods to discover facts.
Original Sin (or Ancestral Sin) is not a fact that can proven or disproven by application of scientific methods. It is not possible to set up an experiment to see if the experimental Adam and Eve will again disobey and then repeat the experiment over and over to verify that they always do.
The study of evolution is a science. God, and all that He has done, does, and will do, are not subject to scientific investigation.
No scientific research can undermine the teaching of Scripture. (Though it might undermine people's opinions about what those teachings are.)

On the other hand, there are those who call themselves Christians who actually think, because of what evolutionary investigation has discovered, that we must understand the Bible to be a book of mythology because "science has proven theology wrong."

Both views are false. Science cannot prove theology to be wrong and theology cannot prove science to be wrong. IMHO

iakov the fool

I still stand by what I wrote...many verses in the bible have to be changed if evolutionism is true. Then again, evolutionism has to be changed if the bible is true.

 

[OzSpen]

Exactly.
A Buddhist may use the word "god" but Buddhism does not have a personal god.
While Christianity leads its believers to an eternal, joyful, communal feast/festival with God and with every last bit of creation, Buddhism leads its followers to an eternal nothingness in which there is no "other" with which to have communion and there is neither joy nor sorrow not any other such experience. Buddhism leads it's devotees into what is a perfect example of hell.

iakov the fool

Well said, Jim.

 

[Jim Parker]

I still stand by what I wrote

Of course you do.

 

[WIP]

I do wish you would be specific to the 'Guidelines' to which you refer.

Your post surprises me. The guidelines are found in the sticky at top of the A&T forum and have been in place since January 2015. They have been referenced by staff countless times in the A&T forum threads with links back to them and even used for disciplinary action when deemed necessary. The purpose of the guidelines is to keep the discussions focused on the Word of God and away from each other and personal opinions. For everyone's sake, here again is a link to the guidelines.