Should Christians update Christianity -- or abandon it?

LOL Here we go again another crusade against Christianity. I choose door number 3 Leave it be. Let it rise or fall on its own merits.

Since there about 2 billion people who are at least nominally Christians and many seem to derive spiritual comfort from their beliefs, I do not think it likely that they will abandon their religion.

Christians cannot repudiate the OT because the authority of Jesus as son of god derives from it. Without Jesus, Christianity is meaningless. Since it's been almost two millennia since Jesus promised to return, you'd think people would give up on him, admit that he isn't coming back, the Bible is NOT the Word of God, and that much of it is immoral or not applicable to modern life.

We need more than a revision, we need a whole new revelation. The problem is that you need to prove that you have the authority of God for your new religion. And it is pretty hard to convince people that you are God's Messenger without some spectacular event. Or you can just kill off all of the non-believers.

I think that churches must not push away anyone that believes in God: the Creator hates sin but loves all the people, including sinners. But they should not encourage behavior that is considered sinful either. Example: a gay man should not be denied of communion just for his being a homosexual, but any Christian church should not sanctify gay marriages, since the Holy Scripture objects the same sex love.

Frank--

This isn't just a hobby for you, is it?

You are Damien! Any small circular tattoos under your hairline? :wink:

Interesting!

But if Christians "believe" the Bible contains the word of GOD -- and if the word of GOD tells them that homosexual conduct is an abomination and that the GOD wants people to KILL people who engage in it -- how do they justify being reasonable and accomodating (not being denied communion) to someone engaged in it?

Explain how you come to the conclusion you come to, Steissd, without encouraging people to be hypocrites.

Nope.

Not Damien!

No tattoos except the one I showed here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9997&start=40

Not even evil!

Just asking a perfectly reasonable question, Sofia.

Sofia has morphed once again, this time into Buffy....keep it coming babe.

I agree with everything Frank said in his original post, except his thesis. Christianity should change and adapt to the times, and bugger the hypocrisy, so to speak. However, if it does not, it will most likely die out in time anyway, so the question about abandoning it is essentially moot.

If the people are being pushed out and rejected, any chance of their correction is lost. When they are inside the system, some probability exists that they may change the way of their lives and be saved. That is why I advocate relative tolerance toward sinners: we must not deprive them of chance to become righteous.

I say let 'em be but limit their activities in the public sphere.

Sheesh, tartarin took my answer. Really. I was reading along, getting ready to say 'let 'em be, but keep them out of government etc.'. then I hit refresh.

Well, it looks like a call for discrimination of people on grounds of their religious faith. Why cannot an American Christian be a member or a head of the U.S. Administration? Why the people of another faith should be preferrable to Christians when the governmental positions are being referred to?

because democracy and theocracy are incompatable (well unless you consider Utah to be democratic)

Frank
I must say that is very good of you to give Christians two choices. Update your religion or abandon it.

I don't mind if they're in government, as long as they keep their religion private. I've never agreed with the political claptrap that if you're religious, you're nobler and more capable. BS! So-o-o-o -- whatever your denomination, whether you're atheist, Baptist, Jew, or Wiccan, keep it to yourself, Mr or Ms Government Official -- doesn't matter if you're appointed, elected, or hired.

As far as I'm concerned, Christians can be members of governments. However, until they comprehend that their belief system is no better than any other, I don't want them spouting off about their beliefs - and I don't want them putting members of their faith ahead of others. The discrimination by Christians in government already exists. I want them to CUT IT OUT!

Tartarin does it again. I've got to learn to compose faster.

Sheesh, ehBeth, you look extremely swift to me!!

Our founding fathers were well aware of the danger of allowing religion to be part of government. I think most of our presidents have been Christians, but seldom used religion to gain power or effect decision making, unlike dubya.

Chrisianity has changed considerably over the milennia. It will continue to do so, hopefully, in a more liberal and accepting direction.

And steissd, homosexuality is not something to be 'cured,' it is simply the way some people respond sexually. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the most insidious philosophies I've ever heard. It gives permission to hate something that cannot be helped and denies the essence of many human beings. To me, that is a sin.

Personally, I don't need academic permission to conclude that sexuality is subject to varying forms of expression throughout nature. I've seen some pretty eye-brow-raising "expression" between and among critters tame and wild, furred, feathered, scaled ... and pigs, too. Some has been amusing, even hilarious, some merely unusual, and some has been downright "Yuck! I'd really rather not have seen that!" (did I mention pigs? <shivvvvver>), Some folks are gonna have "unconventional sexual preferences", which, if responsibly, discretely, appropriately, consensually exercized are no more a justification for discrimination than creed, ethnicity, or gender ... absolutely no legitimate secular argument for the limitation of franchise, opportunity, or dignity on such basis can be made. Gay rights, women's rights, racial rights and all the other "Special Rights" are bullshit. Basic human rights are basic human rights, period. Of course, with rights come responsibilities ... one has the obligation to respect the rights of others. Legitimizing homosexuality does not legitmize wanton, licentuous promiscuity or predatory practice, any more than does heterosexuality legitimize such behavior.

It does pose a critical dillema to Christianity, calling for the re-evaluation of one of the foundation blocks of the moral code fundamental to the faith. If just one of the traditional immutable truths is to be invalidated, does that not call to question the validity of the concept of immutable truth itself? Many believe it would do precisely that, and can see no possibility of integrating homosexuality with Christian morality, despite the recent discoveries establishing physiologic basis for same-sex preference and practice. No matter that homosexuality is not exclusively, or even particularly, a matter of volition, the concept itself is contrary to the most basic of tenets of the faith. Christian ethics stand at odds with secular morality, while secular ethics challenge Christian morality. The issue is of far greater significance than most realize. Philosophically, a practicing traditional Christian cannot ebdorse or condone homosexuality honestly, nor can a practicing homosexual ethically validate that behavior within a traditional Christian framework ... the two are antithetical. Whatever may come, Christianity, at least as it has been known for two millenia, is doomed. There may come a "New Christianity" ... likely there will, and such a development signals no less momentous, far-reaching an upheaval within Christianity than that brought about by The Protestant Reformation. If it is to survive, Christianity will change ... as it has done before, as must all works of humankind.