No, that's a misconception of my words. I did youth ministry forever. You can't imagine how many hours. But I'm not tooting my horn. Anyways, a big part of that was finding ways to move them past professions of faith into catalyzing ministry such that they would actually "do" something.
It's a big problem to merely just believe. It's why we're supposed to be doers of the Word and not hearers only. For a ton of people much of the Gospels don't penetrate and then later they wonder why their faith has gotten so lukewarm. The roots don't go down, the seed barely sprouts, the plant ends up withering in the hot sun.
It's an occupational observation and an old habit. You begin to realize that a lot of people simply don't want anything more than the comfortable feeling of labels, and once they've labeled themselves, they're done in their spiritual walk. It's how we failed a ton of believers by not requiring more of them.
Look at a vibrant church of believers and you'll see the opposite: people who find not only one ministry but constantly look to engage in new ones. Look at dying churches: a few tired souls who do too much and burn out and a bunch of people who never found the commitment to engage in ministry.
A lot of people only give lip service to Christianity, so we shouldn't think that it's necessarily sincere in politics and in politicians unless their actions say in the legislature reflect their professed beliefs.
No, this isn't a logical fallacy like No True Scotsman. It's an observation based upon the Jesus' words. That's rather a high authority, don't you think for Christian behavior?
Yeah, but technically there's like over 2 billion Christians worldwide. That's a generally accepted figure. And according to your definition of "Christian", that number is off by over a billion. So... yeah.
Christians are people who follow Christ. They may or may not agree on other details. We have no idea what Jesus would do, because he's not here to tell us. For all I know he would consider Jews and Muslims Christians too. Jesus seemed to be a guy who unites, not divides.
Yeah, but technically there's like over 2 billion Christians worldwide. That's a generally accepted figure. And according to your definition of "Christian", that number is off by over a billion. So... yeah.
Christians are people who follow Christ. They may or may not agree on other details. We have no idea what Jesus would do, because he's not here to tell us. For all I know he would consider Jews and Muslims Christians too. Jesus seemed to be a guy who unites, not divides.
I would say that we don't know who Jesus will save in the afterlife. He's the judge, not us, and so we don't condemn anyone. It's my hope that Heaven is very full and Hell is very empty.
My observations are that our life should be in accordance to our beliefs, but we are terrible sinners, and only by Grace from Jesus are we saved. No works can do it, but faith without works is dead according to James. Works are a visible sign that the love of Christ has convicted our hearts and made us into a new creation.
Spoiler:
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. James 2:14-26
Don't misunderstand my meaning.
No, Jesus said the only way to Yahweh (the Father) is through himself. Not Muhammed. You cannot just read the Torah and the Prophets and know Yahweh.
Link to video.
But the amazing unfolding of God for all the world happens within the span of Jesus life and beyond. First Yahweh is for a tiny handful that spills over into the 12 tribes of Israel. They had converts, but nothing like after Jesus. It was largely a very exclusive spiritual system prior.
But look at these WONDERFUL verses. It stunned me the first time I read it. These are the most inclusive verses in Scripture.
23Before the coming of this faith,j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3: 23-26
Nor is there male or female. This is a revolutionary idea for the time period!
Nor is their Jew or Gentile. This is a shocking idea to a devout Jew of the time period. The Jews felt they were the chosen people of Yahweh. What is Paul talking about? Both Jewish and Gentile Christians were believers. Some felt a sense of status given they were Jewish. But Paul makes a remarkable statement in that's no longer the case anymore.
Nor is there slave nor free. Status from money and power no longer mattered!
Those verses blow me away for the time in which they were written. We still have problems with this in postmodern America but these ideas are nearly 2,000 years old. And not only that, Paul was a devout Jew who hunted down Christians prior and he convert to share the Gospel largely with Gentiles!
The Gospels have been around so long, that when we read them we forget how radical they were!
We have no idea of numbers, but we do know that there are huge numbers of new Christians in Communist China. It's long been an atheist nation. Now praise God these brave Chinese people are not arguing about God's existence, but taking it on faith by using their heart to enter into a new life in Jesus Christ.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
This is of course incorrect. In ancient scriptures such as Vedas and Upanishads the knowledge of infinite absolute is revealed. I dont think that the realisations of Buddha or Krishna are anything less than that of the Christ: I and my Father are one.
We have to ask ourselves what Christ represents? Infinite consciousness. Now what he is essentialy saying is that the only way to God is through expansion of consciousnes.
This is of course incorrect. In ancient scriptures such as Vedas and Upanishads the knowledge of infinite absolute is revealed. I dont think that the realisations of Buddha or Krishna are anything less than that of the Christ: I and my Father are one.
We have to ask ourselves what Christ represents? Infinite consciousness. Now what he is essentialy saying is that the only way to God is through expansion of consciousnes.
I don't think the historical Jesus would ever have said or meant anything like that. The saying in question is almost certainly inauthentic. Even so, I doubt that the author of John's Gospel (or his source) meant it quite as you suggest here either.
Virtually all the sayings attributed to Jesus in John's Gospel are probably inauthentic. John presents Jesus as teaching in a completely different style, about completely different subjects, from the Synoptics. Most scholars think that the Synoptics are at least partially historical, but John is mostly not.
This thread probably isn't the place to discuss this, but there's a wealth of material elsewhere with more details if you're interested. Start here.
If one doesn't believe and then teaches others who do believe, it seems to me that is not a good way to learn about faith matters. I can't teach atheists without bias if I'm an ardent believer. I couldn't teach spritual system X because I don't feel it's Truth much less All TRUTH.
Imagine I'm teaching a class about the words of famous atheist thinkers through the 20-21st centuries. Knowing only what you know about me from my posts, do you think I might be biased and then that would be reflected in my teaching style? No matter how hard I try, my faith would carry over with eyerolling at the very least.
...
Universalism in which all religions are valid is an extremely weak position. Those who adopt it, I wonder if they realize that many of the sacred texts are in clear opposition to each other. They cancel each other out so to speak. Would anyone claim that the Satanic Bible and the Christian Bible are of equal merit and both are true? Nonsense!
Would any philosopher think all philosophy was of equal merit? We might see some text that had meaning in it, only to find out that the person writing it was suffering mental illness when they wrote it.
Imagine I'm teaching a class about the words of famous atheist thinkers through the 20-21st centuries. Knowing only what you know about me from my posts, do you think I might be biased and then that would be reflected in my teaching style? No matter how hard I try, my faith would carry over with eyerolling at the very least.
If you're a professional teacher or professor, it shouldn't be a problem. I had a Christian teach me biology, including evolution. No eye rolling from him, just the facts.
If one doesn't believe and then teaches others who do believe, it seems to me that is not a good way to learn about faith matters. I can't teach atheists without bias if I'm an ardent believer. I couldn't teach spritual system X because I don't feel it's Truth much less All TRUTH.
Imagine I'm teaching a class about the words of famous atheist thinkers through the 20-21st centuries. Knowing only what you know about me from my posts, do you think I might be biased and then that would be reflected in my teaching style? No matter how hard I try, my faith would carry over with eyerolling at the very least.
There's nothing wrong with teaching a viewpoint one doesn't believe in oneself. If that weren't the case no-one could ever teach the philosophy of Plato or the physics of Descartes. Everyone has a viewpoint - you can call it "bias" if you want - and a viewpoint that agrees with the taught material is just as one-sided as one that disagrees with it. I would expect a believer to be no less one-sided than a non-believer, and possibly more so. The important thing is to acknowledge your own point of view, to try to understand and explain as honestly as you can the rationale behind the views that you disagree with, and to encourage students to work out what their own responses would be.
If I managed to teach a text of C.S. Lewis last week in a positive way, as indeed I did, anything's possible!
It's not that the texts are equally valid, it's that each offers a (different) degree of insight. Each sincere spiritual person is giving their insights the best they can. It's all evidence regarding a greater whole. The Objective Truth is going to be able to explain every insight.
Now, I lean towards Naturalism, so my suspicion is that the broad range of spiritual encounters (that has massive similarities between faiths) can be explained through neuroscientific means. This means that the brains (and beliefs) of sincere Hindus will truck us forwards, just like learning the psychology and neuroanatomy of Christians will.
Universalism in which all religions are valid is an extremely weak position. Those who adopt it, I wonder if they realize that many of the sacred texts are in clear opposition to each other.
Many verses in the Bible would seem, on first blush, to be in clear opposition to each other. All one needs to reconcile them is a sufficiently determined exegete--as we've had for the Bible for centuries.
This can't be your grounds for rejecting universalism.
he Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
Crackerbox doesn't regard himself as that Pharisee. He can determine from outward appearances whether someone is authentically Christian (like him) or not.
(But I like it that you and I immediately thought of the same passage. It's part of what Farm Boy means in the beer-rant thread about you and me being right and left hand.)
I wonder whether Crackerbox will take any spiritual benefit from the fact that two people thought of the exact same scriptural passage in connection with his posts.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
