What is Evangelism?

Survey results show Christians becoming less concerned about the environment
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180123113020.htm

This is about what one could expect from a tradition which is so exclusively human-centered. Nary a line in scripture which reflects empathy or concern for the non-human creatures we share the planet with.

Republican Gets Christianity Lesson From CNN Journalist After Misunderstanding Immaculate Conception
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-gets-christianity-lesson-cnn-180417464.html

Bible-thumping Republican hypocrisy? What are your thoughts on this?
https://www.facebook.com/AtheistRepublic/videos/1698890690197783/

When the only focus is getting people "born again" but not "teaching history" then you can make Jesus into whatever you want him to be...

I couldn’t agree with you more. The Roman Catholic Church through its bishops and the Pope were charged By Jesus with job of compiling the teachings that Christ gave orally to the apostles. They were to make sure that these teachings stick to the Spirit and true intentions behind His teachings.

For that reason they had many councils where they discussed Jesus’s teachings, developed a written doctoring (including the Bible). The proceedings were recorded, and the Bible was developed, and after a few hundred years his teachings were established in the magisterium of the Catholic Church for posterity. As knew issues arise the bishops have interpreted how the these new issues are to be incorporated into our lives in a way that is in accordance with the way Jesus himself would like to see that happen.(Given Jesus gave the apostles and the successors that authority).

Unfortunately men have been men and priests, bishops and lay people, have not always lived lives that foster the type of respect necessary to allow people to respect their God given historical teaching authority.

For that reason we have a fractured interpretation of the teachings of Christ among believers and nonbelievers.

Fortunately God has been bigger than the men, and protected the magisterium, in spite of the sinful nature of the men charged with protecting and developing it. (Which is obvious by its doctrinal continuity over long periods of time.)

For that reason (if the church is correctly teaching history and incorporating it into modern times) all Catholics should know how Jesus would want them to present themselves in a representative form of government. And they should understand that Jesus’ purpose for government is to promote good and punish evil. Even on subjects that aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bible. (Though on the subjects mentioned in the video the magisterium has had a consistent teaching, with some subjects covered extensively in the very early church.)

I love reading the New Advent online Catholic Encyclopedia. I find it very true to history even to the point of sometimes contradicting current Catholic doctrine.

Doctrines evolve but history stays the same.

Faith is a struggle between history, traditions and contemporary belief systems.

(I love that word, "magisterium"... )

Not sure if I agree with that. History is re-evaluated/reinterpreted all the time, it's also written by the winners. Look at how Columbus' image has changed recently, he used to be a heroic explorer, now the response is more nuanced.

The 'English Civil War,' has always been framed as a fight between parliamentary democracy and authoritarian monarchy, now historians are seeing things differently, as religious intolerance whose first shots were fired in Scotland and Ireland.

Then there's new discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that challenge established thinking.



http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-war-with-eastasia.html#.Wn1aDt9LGUw

Why do you like the word magisterium??

It sounds mystical and old school.

Like Magi, mystery and forum all rolled up into one word.

I don't think the doctrines of the Catholic Church have changed. I think that the understanding of the dotrine and how to incorporate into our lives have changed as we learn as a society from experience. (which is the study of history) Well doctrine shouldn't change and there are always people who want to change doctrine and incorporate these changes into modern understanding of the faith and the way the church expresses it.

Fortunately the core teachings and truth carry on as Jesus promised Peter and the other apostles. That is why I am an advocate of maintaining the Latin high mass as an option, and teaching all people a thorough philosophical understanding of the teachings and writings of the fathers of the church.

The doctrines of the 1st century church changed radically from the 1st to the 3rd century until it was canonized.

Then it has remained quite stable for over a thousand years.

This does not alter the fact that in the first three centuries after the proposed events of Jesus that the doctrine was radically altered by the powers that be.

This is why, even the Roman Catholic church has several versions of "history" dating from that period.

One version of church "history" portrays Jesus as a shepherd king, another portrays him as a common man, another portrays him as a servant of the people and yet another portrays him as the son of God (or rather "God the son"...).

This is why there are 4 Gospels and not just one...

Columbus will always be the person who in 1492 came to the new world unless that knowledge is wiped out from memory.

Yet, our perception of him is a doctrinal issue.

No one will ever argue that black slavery never happened but our perception of that event is a doctrinal issue.

History "builds" but it rarely ever changes because the preconceived notions are still there for consideration. The preconceived notions are history too.

Our perception of history is a doctrinal issue.

History builds in that new facts can be piled on top of old facts.

Doctrines change because our perception of truth and morality are enlightened by social and intellectual understanding.

The changes in doctrines are also historical. Doctrines and history are together but have distinct independence of each other.

I might have said some kind words about the passing of Billy Graham if his son wasn't such a dunghill of deceit...

Jimmy Carter Creates Solar Farm To Power Half Of His City
https://www.themaven.net/theintellectualist/news/jimmy-carter-creates-solar-farm-to-power-half-of-his-city-UXGR-VBehEW5hH4wOz3gfg

Comment:
It seems doing some genuine good and being a caring Christian always comes with the words liberal and science attached to it.

Could you give me some examples of this radically altered doctrine?

I sure can, just take a look at the Apocrypha i.e. the Nag Hammadi Library and many codices that did not make it into the Bible's canon. Books that would have been destroyed by the church had they not escaped their wrath.

Many of these writings were said to have also been written by "the apostles" yet they contradict the message the holy Roman empire wanted to portray.

Many of them also predate the writings in the New Testament leaving out many "additions" that were inserted into the New Testament.

They amply discredit the timeline of "events" in the New Testament.

And how does that change and timeline alter the doctrine of the Catholic Church

Well, the Crucifixion never happened, that was added (just as the Muslims have claimed). Which answers the age old question of why the Gospel of John differs considerably.
Herod's slaughter of the babies didn't happen. The whole manger scene never happened. Judas was not originally seen as a traitor. ...And Camelot never existed. Unicorns are actually wild rams. The letters were not, as they stand. "written by the apostles".

Though it makes for interesting reading in places it is for the most part the culmination of many works of fiction all jammed together into a somewhat
convincing narrative to the naive.

The story as it stands does have moral implications but, so does Romeo and Juliet and Hansel and Gretel...

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm

at the end to this article it states...


We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned Jesus’ resurrection.

I am sure that Christians also challenge the passages in the Koran where Mohamed "saw the Angel Gabriel".

...both are fabrications of fancy and fiction.

Both religions were started by someone who understood there is a mind behind the order with a plan.

One group says that mind is going to make everything right again some day for us. Till then They believePeople have the right to form their own government and government has one purpose to promote good and punish evil. And you those people are guided by God when they form their conscience they will form a good government.

The other group says it's up to them to force people into theocradic government that allows only their religion to be taught.

That is why Christians have a hard time worshiping in a Muslim nation but Muslims have an easy time worshiping in a Christian nation.