Jump to content

What Denomination Do You Attend?


overcast
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some more questions :)

(1) What denomination of church do you attend, and how regularly do you attend?

(2) What other religious practices do you observe (e.g. prayer, fasting, meditation, volunteering, etc.)?

(3) Are you able to openly express your progressive beliefs, or must you keep them private?

1. Independent Pentecostal

2. Active meditation (tai chi sequences /yoga asanas), mindfulness meditation, prayer, witchcraft using breath, giving, engaging with music ie praise and worship.

3. I must keep them private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Independent Pentecostal

2. Active meditation (tai chi sequences /yoga asanas), mindfulness meditation, prayer, witchcraft using breath, giving, engaging with music ie praise and worship.

3. I must keep them private.

Thanks, Azvanna, that is an interesting mix. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more questions :)

(1) What denomination of church do you attend, and how regularly do you attend?

(2) What other religious practices do you observe (e.g. prayer, fasting, meditation, volunteering, etc.)?

(3) Are you able to openly express your progressive beliefs, or must you keep them private?

 

1.) I attend a United Methodist Church. I am the music director. I've missed less than 20 Sundays in my entire life (preacher's kid!)

2.) I meditate, but not as frequently as I did in my 30s. I find a lot of meaning in the music of the church. I journal. I read the Bible.

3.) Hmm. I used to attend a very progressive church in which I could express my progressive beliefs, but could not express my orthodox beliefs. Now I work at a moderate church (good balance between progressives, moderates, and conservatives) where I pretty much keep it private. I got into it with a conservative in Sunday school about Univeralism. I decided that maybe since I'm on staff, I shouldn't be so open about what I believe. I don't want it to cause a barrier with people that would make me less effective as a music minister.

 

I don't like that UMC is behind the times on gay marriage. I was brought up Presbyterian, and they are well ahead in this area, but I do like the liturgy, the hymns, the emphasis on social justice, and the method (the Quadrilateral).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, fatherman :) That is interesting, because most Progressive Christians seem to be so far from Christian orthodoxy that identifying as Christian at all seems strange to me. Your apparent beliefs and behavior seem more "Christian" to me, so labeling as Progressive Christian seems sensible in your case IMO.

 

I don't know why I care about labels, but it annoys me when they are misleading. Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual". "Progressive Christian" should mean you have some commonalities with other types of Christians. Somebody who thinks the historical Jesus was just an ordinary Jew with delusions of grandeur (like I believe) should not label as a "Progressive Christian" IMO.

 

Of course everybody can label as they want. It's just a pet peeve. :)

Edited by overcast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, fatherman :) That is interesting, because most Progressive Christians seem to be so far from Christian orthodoxy that identifying as Christian at all seems strange to me. Your apparent beliefs and behavior seem more "Christian" to me, so labeling as Progressive Christian seems sensible in your case IMO.

 

I don't know why I care about labels, but it annoys me when they are misleading. Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual". "Progressive Christian" should mean you have some commonalities with other types of Christians. Somebody who thinks the historical Jesus was just an ordinary Jew with delusions of grandeur (like I believe) should not label as a "Progressive Christian" IMO.

 

Of course everybody can label as they want. It's just a pet peeve. :)

 

" Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual"."

 

A side note to what you've said here. There are people that don't believe in a god, but do believe in a spiritual dimension to the earth (earth-based religions for example). That there is something spiritual to humans and plants and animals and elements. They just don't believe in God, but they are spiritual nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category! But I think some people would put themselves there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcast,

The problem with labels is they try to put you in a box as if we all have the same beliefs and at the same point in our spiritual journey and therefore are called by that label. The fact is that though many find that comfortable, people are more complicated than mere labels. If one really wants to know exactly what a person believes, it is in my view, best to simple ask them a specific question rather than trying to categorize them. The only thing Progressive Christians have in common here is that in general they subscribe to the 8 points of PC listed on this site. And even those tenets have changed over time to more accurately reflex commonalities. In essence "Progressive Christianity is an open, intelligent and collaborative approach to the Christian tradition and the life and teachings of Jesus that creates a pathway into an authentic and relevant religious experience."

For a message from this sites president (Fred Plumer) on what exactly is Progressive Progressive Christianity Click HERE and check out the video part way down on the right.

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
edit link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labels try to put people in a conveniently marked box because generally as humans we seem to be happier if we 'know' everything's place.

 

As for the label of 'Atheist', I know one agreed definition may be hard to find but generally I have understood Atheist to be the opposite to Theist. A Theist believes in the existence of a god or gods and more specifically in a creator god who intervenes in the universe.

 

Conversely, an Atheist doesn't believe in those things, but I fail to see how that excludes an Atheist from having a spiritual dimension. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe in God (i.e. God being a stand-alone separate entity either watching over us or some other way external to us), but that doesn't mean I don't think there could be a spiritual side of life that we don't understand.

 

To me, the term God can be so misleading and responsible for so much misunderstanding. What if 'God' is simply the energy/vibration that we all come from and is not something outside of ourselves but rather we are it fully?

 

 

An atheist should not label as "spiritual".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcast,

The problem with labels is they try to put you in a box as if we all have the same beliefs and at the same point in our spiritual journey and therefore are called by that label. The fact is that though many find that comfortable, people are more complicated than mere labels. If one really wants to know exactly what a person believes, it is in my view, best to simple ask them a specific question rather than trying to categorize them. The only thing Progressive Christians have in common here is that in general they subscribe to the 8 points of PC listed on this site. And even those tenets have changed over time to more accurately reflex commonalities. In essence "Progressive Christianity is an open, intelligent and collaborative approach to the Christian tradition and the life and teachings of Jesus that creates a pathway into an authentic and relevant religious experience."[/size]

For a message from this sites president (Fred Plumer) on what exactly is Progressive Progressive Christianity Click [/size]HERE and check out the video part way down on the right.

Joseph

Joseph, the link in your post is broken, but I googled and found a video where Fred Plumer explains Progressive Christainity. I have a better understanding of PC now after watching the video you suggested. Plumer seems to see the historic Jesus as a Buddha-like figure with teachings and practices that will lead to self-improvement and an experience of the divine. That's fine and dandy except that the teachings and practices of Jesus have come down to us in the Bible and the traditions of earliest churches. There are so many fundamental disagreements between the early churches that we cannot accept them collectively, and we cannot identify the true teachings among all the heresies.

 

So what is a Progressive Christian supposed to do?

(1) A PC might test all the known forms of early Christianity by practicing and studying each one in turn for several years. If something "works" then the PC might assume he/she has found the "true" teachings of Jesus in that ancient Christian sect.

(2) A PC might test spiritual practices with non-Christian roots. If somethign "works" then the PC might assume this is the "true" teachings of Jesus discovered independently by Buddha, Muhammad, or whoever.

 

Why not simply ignore Christianity and Jesus entirely? Buddhism has sects, but my impression is that they are far more consistent than the early sects of Christianity. Where is the historical evidence that Christianity has EVER been good for anything? It's a wld goose chase IMO.

Edited by overcast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labels try to put people in a conveniently marked box because generally as humans we seem to be happier if we 'know' everything's place.

 

As for the label of 'Atheist', I know one agreed definition may be hard to find but generally I have understood Atheist to be the opposite to Theist. A Theist believes in the existence of a god or gods and more specifically in a creator god who intervenes in the universe.

 

Conversely, an Atheist doesn't believe in those things, but I fail to see how that excludes an Atheist from having a spiritual dimension. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe in God (i.e. God being a stand-alone separate entity either watching over us or some other way external to us), but that doesn't mean I don't think there could be a spiritual side of life that we don't understand.

 

To me, the term God can be so misleading and responsible for so much misunderstanding. What if 'God' is simply the energy/vibration that we all come from and is not something outside of ourselves but rather we are it fully?

I agree that a popular definition of atheist is "somebody who does not currently believe in any deities". IMO this definition is particularly popular because it allows the atheist to simply sit back and poke holes in theist arguments in a debate.

 

If I was "label faery", I would define atheist as "somebody whose aspires to use the scientific method to decide what to believe". This definition would prohibit atheists from claiming to believe in panentheism, astrology, faeries, ET visitation, etc. An atheist might be fascinated by the possibility that some of these things might be true, but an atheist should be a skeptic. Of course an atheist should feel free to assign probabilities to different theories. For example an atheist might say he is 95% sure that ET visitation has not happened. In other words, an atheist can be on the fence, if the evidence looks that way.

 

:) I'm not sure what my point is. I think I will go to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual"."

 

A side note to what you've said here. There are people that don't believe in a god, but do believe in a spiritual dimension to the earth (earth-based religions for example). That there is something spiritual to humans and plants and animals and elements. They just don't believe in God, but they are spiritual nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category! But I think some people would put themselves there.

That is true. There was an article on Patheos about an atheist who was a priestess in a pagan group. This priestess believed paganism was entirely imaginary and emotional, but she enjoyed the activities. She compared it to going to a rock concert. :)

Edited by overcast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Overcast,

 

I edited the link and it works for me now.

 

Concerning your comments. I think you will find we are not so concerned about disagreements between the early churches or churches today for that matter. As far as what are the true teachings of Jesus...... does it really matter? If only a couple of the reported teachings provides you with an approach to the Divine/God/unity etc. that is a sufficient start to lead one to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life. Does it really matter whether one believes the Jesus of the Bible really existed or is a church made up myth? To some it may, but then they miss the point. It is not the man that is important but the truth of the teachings and in my view they can be tested for oneself.

 

It seems to me it might be interesting, as you said, for the PC to study "all the known forms of early Christianity " or " test spiritual practices with non-Christian roots" and i must admit that i certainly have partaken of such.... but i have personally found it to be more like 'ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth'

 

You ask "Why not simply ignore Christianity and Jesus entirely?" . If that works for another, i have no problem with that. However i have , in my experience, found great insight and wisdom in many of the reported teachings of Jesus that have brought me peace and joy. I find many of those teachings are also found in common with the foundational teachings of other religions and that is also fine with me. Whatever religion or lack of it that leads one to the Unity of Spirit of Life that is present in all to me is a good thing. One does not need to become a PC to awake to the Unity i speak of. You will not find us proselytizing here... at least not intentionally :rolleyes:

Peace,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.k. thanks. I'm not sure what I think about PC.

 

From a practical perspective, maybe PC provides a bridge to help people become atheists. My impression is that many fundamentalists travel through non-fundamentalist denominations before finally leaving the faith. If PC can provide a safe Christian environment for fundamentalists to learn about Biblical criticism, early Christianity, etc. then that is good.

 

From a purist perspective, I don't think PC makes any sense at all. Where are these Christian teachings that are supposed to be the path to enlightenment? The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc. The epistles are mostly Paul ranting. The traditions of the church are things like monks with extreme ascetic practices. And let's not forget the teachings about sex. Even married couples were encouraged to be celibate. IMO, these teachings are foolish and potentially dangerous for mentally unstable people. Furthermore, it seems a little disingenuous for people to label as Christian with the stated goal of transforming Christianity to prevent its extinction. A person attempting to transform something must not view that thing as sacred IMO. Therefore a Christian cannot knowingly redesign a religion like Christianity that is supposed to originate with divine revelations.

 

EDIT: IMO, PCs should simply study Christianity, discover that it doesn't work, then convert to Buddhism, Wicca, atheism, etc. Why try to change Christianity into Buddhism, Wicca, or atheism? Broadening the definition of Christianity only allows the traditional Christians to hide behind the smoke screen. Christianity needs to be isolated and ridiculed until we can finally say "will the last Christian leaving the faith please turn out the lights?" :)

 

Of course the people who are PC's seem nice. I'm not attacking you guys. :)

Edited by overcast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.k. thanks. I'm not sure what I think about PC.

 

From a practical perspective, maybe PC provides a bridge to help people become atheists. My impression is that many fundamentalists travel through non-fundamentalist denominations before finally leaving the faith. If PC can provide a safe Christian environment for fundamentalists to learn about Biblical criticism, early Christianity, etc. then that is good.

 

From a purist perspective, I don't think PC makes any sense at all. Where are these Christian teachings that are supposed to be the path to enlightenment? The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc. The epistles are mostly Paul ranting. The traditions of the church are things like monks with extreme ascetic practices. And let's not forget the teachings about sex. Even married couples were encouraged to be celibate. IMO, these teachings are foolish and potentially dangerous for mentally unstable people. Furthermore, it seems a little disingenuous for people to label as Christian with the stated goal of transforming Christianity to prevent its extinction. A person attempting to transform something must not view that thing as sacred IMO. Therefore a Christian cannot knowingly redesign a religion like Christianity that is supposed to originate with divine revelations.

 

EDIT: IMO, PCs should simply study Christianity, discover that it doesn't work, then convert to Buddhism, Wicca, atheism, etc. Why try to change Christianity into Buddhism, Wicca, or atheism? Broadening the definition of Christianity only allows the traditional Christians to hide behind the smoke screen. Christianity needs to be isolated and ridiculed until we can finally say "will the last Christian leaving the faith please turn out the lights?" :)

 

Of course the people who are PC's seem nice. I'm not attacking you guys. :)

Interesting points! This is where I differ with many PCs. First off, I don't call myself a progressive Christian in the sense that I'm a Liberal Christian or that I reject orthodoxy. If I'm a PC at all it's on the point that I don't believe that I HAVE to believe anything at all or any specific thing in order to be accepted by God.

 

I accept much of the traditional views of the Bible and Jesus as valid....or as fundamentally Christian. But I reject some of it. I would rather call myself a heretic than to set out to change Christianity, with some exceptions. I think that Christians should leave the judging to God. Christian beliefs should stay our of civil law. Christians should be taking Christ's teachings to care for the needy far more seriously than these peripheral issues like being anti-gay and anti-abortion. Christianity should be about Love, Hope, and Peace. The litmus on Christian living should be, "Does this action bring more love, hope, or peace into the world or less?"

 

I was a member of a progressive church for 15 years before I got a job at another church. It turned as many kids into atheists as the Catholic church or Judaism. When kids went to confirmation and then were asked in front of the church if they wanted to be confirmed and make a profession of faith many did not. I respect it. It means that our kids are thinking critically and taking the decision very seriously. But I believe in raising a child in whatever faith you subscribe to (if at all). It gives them something to work with or against or come back to later in life. I feel that this church was failing in this area. Kids need to be given something black and white until they can begin to comprehend and consider the gray.

 

In regard to atheists and Christianity. There are many atheists who follow the social teachings of Jesus. I happen to think that this is an excellent thing in that it gives a person a moral framework and a life path that is positive. The Dalai Lama encouraged the world to stick with the faith they were raised in. I come from a long line of Protestants. I explored Buddhism and New Age and Neo-Paganism for quite a few years, but what I found is that the wisdom I was learning and experiences I was having had Christian names and symbols already. So why change the heritage of my family name just to call my faith by different names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the word progress means moving forward so a Progressive Christian would be one that wants to move Christianity forward to a new paradigm. I meditate, but I am not Buddhist, I do yoga, but I am not Hindu. I feel I am Christian because I use Jesus as my deity to represent the abstract infinite realm in a physical form that I can relate to on the physical plane. Many people do not flock to the church and the problem is religion is not rational, but emotional, and it is not grounded in knowledge or in a firsthand spiritual experience except in the mystical components that are usually hidden in the tradition. The churches disregarding the mystical and scientific knowledge end up only providing ethical guidance when people want more than just being preached at. People would rather know and feel the experience of the Divinity within than just knowing the definition. Explanations of a universal consciousness can bring about and maintain the experience of being a part of the whole providing the young, curious minds with the inspiration to form their own views in life. Spiritual experience is an inside job that inspires people to help others and at the same time experience the love and peace from relaxing in the consciousness in the whole. It is time for a paradigm shift for our churches to see the virtue in opening minds and refining them instead of controlling and correcting them. We need a faith where people are able to know the Divine, understand the experience and incorporate it in their life so they may master, rule and have power over their abilities, senses, and desires. We need Christians who are grounded in reason and are big enough to adapt, cooperate and be resourceful in the moment as they cultivate virtue. The church is a living organism that needs to regenerate with each generation taking truths wherever they find them in order to enhance and deepen our wisdom and spirituality. It follows then that the undertaking of the ministry is not to rule with law and intense fear, but to restore and prepare people for a spiritual encounter through experience, persuasion and reasoning. Humans have free will and will prevail or fail on their own choice so need to come into their whole being expanding their choices and opportunities and not be poked and pushed with hate, hell or real estate in heaven. Making people feel guilty nudges them to the depths of misery, but a personal spiritual experience can suddenly elevate one to the height of bliss beyond authority, tradition and the conventional view. We need to rise above the conventional thought because we tend to make God in our human image with human qualities, but God is beyond your understanding and the behaviors of humans. In our finite world we calculate, label and explain things, but the infinite sphere is beyond our senses and the limits of the conventional mind; subsequently, Christ did not prescribe a religion or government, but only a love that is not fooled by our faults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcast,

 

You said "The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc." What about his teachings on forgiveness, about measuring or judging others, about loving your neighbor, about not being anxious about your life in taking too much thought for what you shall wear, eat etc., about giving and receiving, about treasuring the things that really matter, about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and many more that you can test for yourself ,

 

Don't forget, the early first Christians didn't have a Bible as you see today nor were they filled with all the baggage from a series of letters written by other people and claimed to be the word of God by a church system. In my view of things, they only had some first or second hand teachings and some passed down verbal teachings from Jesus. Jesus himself is recorded writing nothing. PC's have as much a right to Christianity as others claiming the same but polluting the teachings with more laws and doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it seems a little disingenuous for people to label as Christian with the stated goal of transforming Christianity to prevent its extinction. A person attempting to transform something must not view that thing as sacred IMO. Therefore a Christian cannot knowingly redesign a religion like Christianity that is supposed to originate with divine revelations.

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't believe Progressive Christianity in general has any stated goal to prevent Christianity's extinction - but rather it seems more like some people who identify with Christianity see the 'bad bits' associated with that religion as not healthy and perhaps not aligned with Jesus' original teachings (because it would seem these contradict the 'good bits'). At worst, I think PC's may tend to think the 'bad bits' associated with Christianity are misunderstandings concerning Jesus and Christianity and that we'd be better off aligning Christianity with modern biblical scholarship, logic, and reason. Perhaps as how it was meant to be received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a popular definition of atheist is "somebody who does not currently believe in any deities". IMO this definition is particularly popular because it allows the atheist to simply sit back and poke holes in theist arguments in a debate.

 

If I was "label faery", I would define atheist as "somebody whose aspires to use the scientific method to decide what to believe". This definition would prohibit atheists from claiming to believe in panentheism, astrology, faeries, ET visitation, etc. An atheist might be fascinated by the possibility that some of these things might be true, but an atheist should be a skeptic. Of course an atheist should feel free to assign probabilities to different theories. For example an atheist might say he is 95% sure that ET visitation has not happened. In other words, an atheist can be on the fence, if the evidence looks that way.

 

:) I'm not sure what my point is. I think I will go to sleep.

I think I understand your pet peeve Overcast, and if definitions were to change, then so be it. If you had the power to change the definition of Atheism to as you suggest, then we would be working with a different definition for the word than is currently understood. If you personally think that Atheists should claim no belief or support for anything beyond the realms of what can be proved by scientific method, then you are trying to rewrite our language as it stands today.

 

But as it stands, the current definition for the word Atheism would seem to allow room for spirituality (which is different to not believing in a theistic God or gods). So I wouldn't consider such people as being misleading and I would suggest you have no reason to be annoyed. People are just following current conventions.

 

I share your concern that it in some way may legitimse others who cling fast to what I regard as harmful religious beliefs, but to a degree I accept that I can't live my life worrying about what others believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand your pet peeve Overcast, and if definitions were to change, then so be it. If you had the power to change the definition of Atheism to as you suggest, then we would be working with a different definition for the word than is currently understood. If you personally think that Atheists should claim no belief or support for anything beyond the realms of what can be proved by scientific method, then you are trying to rewrite our language as it stands today.

 

But as it stands, the current definition for the word Atheism would seem to allow room for spirituality (which is different to not believing in a theistic God or gods). So I wouldn't consider such people as being misleading and I would suggest you have no reason to be annoyed. People are just following current conventions.

 

I share your concern that it in some way may legitimse others who cling fast to what I regard as harmful religious beliefs, but to a degree I accept that I can't live my life worrying about what others believe.

It all comes down to the definition of "spiritual". "Spirit" is embedded in the world "spiritual", so IMO "spiritual" implies belief in "spirits". IMO an atheist who justifies disbelief in deities because there is no scientific evidence should not believe in other things that have no scientific evidence.

 

I don't have a problem with atheists who feel inspired by (for example) realizing that the iron in their bodies came from an explosion of a now extinct star long before our own sun formed. Understanding that the boundaries of our bodies, identity, birth, death, etc. are convenient abstractions is not being "spiritual". Unfortunately it is human nature to go further and start imagining the "Great Spirit" flowing through all matter and influencing material events. That's going too far for a person who labels as an atheist IMO.

 

It's just my pet peeve :)

 

EDIT: Partly my feelings arise from my personal struggle with superstitious thinking. For example, I was reading an article about cancellation of the A-10 Warthog, and one of the quotes was from "General Hostage". Sometimes I think that something is sending me coded messages in the things that I read. If I allow myself to speculate about the "Great Spirit", then I start worrying when a sock disappears from my laundry. :)

Edited by overcast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath", but also "spirit, soul, courage, vigor"

 

English words associated with spirit ... courage, enthusiasm, heart, resolve, vigor, essence etc..

 

In common they all relate to a non-corporeal substance in that it does not occupy space or have mass. A spiritual person does not necessarily imply belief in "spirits" (ghosts) as you seem to me to assume in your post though i admit some might.

 

To me, a spiritual person is more concerned with virtues or "fruits" as the Bible might call them than the physical substances of this world. Fruits being such things as love, joy, peace, forbearance (patience or self-control), kindness, goodness, gentleness, etc. While these things may be closely linked to religion, a non-religious person or Atheist may strive for these non-corporeal things and thus also be considered in my view a spiritual person by definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to the definition of "spiritual". "Spirit" is embedded in the world "spiritual", so IMO "spiritual" implies belief in "spirits". IMO an atheist who justifies disbelief in deities because there is no scientific evidence should not believe in other things that have no scientific evidence.

I actually think it comes down to the word Atheist - which is from the Greek atheos, meaning 'godless, denying the gods, ungodly'.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system, it is actually about a 'lack' of belief. So rather than atheism meaning a belief in logic, science, what can be proved etc, true atheism simply means one doesn't believe in God or gods. Maybe some atheists feel the term is being 'stolen' from them, but really this is just being true to what the word means.

 

But yes, superstitious thinking can be a concern. Reading 'spiritual' messages into things can be dangerous. Alternately, closing one's mind to anything at all possibly existing which currently cannot be proven, might mean we are missing out too.

 

I think minds can be open without having to be superstitious.

Edited by PaulS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overcast,

 

You said "The sayings of Jesus in the gospels are mostly apocalyptic, hyperbolic, etc." What about his teachings on forgiveness, about measuring or judging others, about loving your neighbor, about not being anxious about your life in taking too much thought for what you shall wear, eat etc., about giving and receiving, about treasuring the things that really matter, about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and many more that you can test for yourself ,

 

Don't forget, the early first Christians didn't have a Bible as you see today nor were they filled with all the baggage from a series of letters written by other people and claimed to be the word of God by a church system. In my view of things, they only had some first or second hand teachings and some passed down verbal teachings from Jesus. Jesus himself is recorded writing nothing. PC's have as much a right to Christianity as others claiming the same but polluting the teachings with more laws and doctrines.

No, I don't think PC's can just make up whatever they feel like and call it Christianity. The beliefs we call Christianity should be equivalent to the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Furthermore, these Christian beliefs should have survived intact to modern times due to their superiority over heresies.

 

Any claimant to the Christian denominational throne must he able to show an uninterrupted line of succession back to Jesus IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think PC's can just make up whatever they feel like and call it Christianity. The beliefs we call Christianity should be equivalent to the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Furthermore, these Christian beliefs should have survived intact to modern times due to their superiority over heresies.

 

Any claimant to the Christian denominational throne must he able to show an uninterrupted line of succession back to Jesus IMO.

As I have nothing to prove or convince anybody else of, I am quite content to associate myself with Christianity in the sense that I believe that Jesus had some excellent teachings for all of us to consider and maybe adopt. I think that Jesus' teachings are useful in many ways.

 

Now I understand that 'Christianity' is a loaded word and it means so many different things to so many different people, but so what. Needing to prove that one's Christianity is the only 'right & true' Christianity is the sort of crap that starts wars! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service