Breaking Bad Religion

[shunyadragon]

Divine revelation.

That is quite a claim!?!?!?!

[NormATive]

While thoroughly fascinating, perhaps the discussion of "divine revelation" is best suited to another thread.

I'm interested in any Christians who are anticipating the next evolutionary step in the religion.

Or, is the consensus that the faith is complete as is - no need to adjust core beliefs to a scientifically and culturally aware 21st century pew muffin?

For example, the Bible quite clearly condemns homosexuality in both the Jewish Testament and the Christian Testament (although it is more clearly condemned in the Tanakh). Since modern society is abandoning this condemnation due to the realization that homosexuals are born that way and it is not a "lifestyle choice," - or; sin - should the dogma of Sola Scriptura be abandoned, since the book is clearly wrong in this instance?

Reformed Jews have altered their thinking on this issue, and accept homosexuals into the fullness of the faith without need of abstinence, rejection or forgiveness.

I see also, that more and more of the more liberal denominations are at least not condemning homosexuals - some are even performing wedding ceremonies, at the risk of losing their ordination.

And, what about the role of women in ministry? In many denominations of Protestant and all of Catholic churches, women assume a secondary role in the Church under the "headship" (Paul's word) of men. Is it not time for this to evolve? For cryin' out loud - which gender tends to drive the bus on the issue of which church to attend? I would think at the least, it would make economic sense to allow women to become full members of the Church.

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

And if your say-so is all the evidence you can offer, I'll take my chances that I'm making a mistake in not believing you.

Too bad, so sad.

What is especially bad and sad is someone thinking that people who won't believe what he says just because he says it are so deserving of his pity.

[Doug Shaver]

While thoroughly fascinating, perhaps the discussion of "divine revelation" is best suited to another thread.

I'll start one, but I couldn't resist one parting shot in this thread.

[Spartacus]

While thoroughly fascinating, perhaps the discussion of "divine revelation" is best suited to another thread.

I'm interested in any Christians who are anticipating the next evolutionary step in the religion.

And in these two lines your perspective is perfectly encapsulated. You're only interested in conversations that promote your preconceived notions of what "evolved" religion looks like. You wouldn't recognize real aggiornamento ("bringing-up-to-date," a term St. John XXIII used to describe what he hoped Vatican II would accomplish) if it came up to you, introduced itself, and gave letters of introduction from every competent theologian of the past century.

For example, the Bible quite clearly condemns homosexuality in both the Jewish Testament and the Christian Testament (although it is more clearly condemned in the Tanakh). Since modern society is abandoning this condemnation due to the realization that homosexuals are born that way and it is not a "lifestyle choice," - or; sin - should the dogma of Sola Scriptura be abandoned, since the book is clearly wrong in this instance?

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises r.e. homosexuality. Even with that failure of logic aside, you have a failure of fact: sola scriptura is not and never has been dogma. It has been a belief of Protestants for about 500 years, but it's never been pronounced dogma-- to my knowledge-- in any denomination that actually uses the word.

And, what about the role of women in ministry? In many denominations of Protestant and all of Catholic churches, women assume a secondary role in the Church under the "headship" (Paul's word) of men. Is it not time for this to evolve? For cryin' out loud - which gender tends to drive the bus on the issue of which church to attend? I would think at the least, it would make economic sense to allow women to become full members of the Church.

NORM

Is a man who is not a priest a full member of the church? Don't be such a clericalist.

It would be nice if you actually understood the theologies of the groups you're criticizing. It might make your critiques... you know... interesting. Christianity, and even historical Judaism, is built up around an encounter-- a deep personal relationship with the divine, not just an ethical "message". The sort of religion you suggest will never do more than tread water and so it will get swept along with every passing cultural current.

[Jedidiah]

That is quite a claim!?!?!?!

One made by every Christian.

[shunyadragon]

One made by every Christian.

I do not believe every Christian claims Divine Revelation. You are defining far differently then I. Looking forward to discussing it in the other thread.

[Darth Executor]

While thoroughly fascinating, perhaps the discussion of "divine revelation" is best suited to another thread.

I'm interested in any Christians who are anticipating the next evolutionary step in the religion.

The next evolutionary step in the religion would be a descent into primitivism. A Kony type of muscular Christianity. People like you would almost certainly be beheaded on sight.

Or, is the consensus that the faith is complete as is - no need to adjust core beliefs to a scientifically and culturally aware 21st century pew muffin?

Scientifically and culturally aware 21st century individuals understand the wisdom earned through generations of bloodshed. The faith will not be complete until the end, but the things people like you demand are not completion, but unraveling.

For example, the Bible quite clearly condemns homosexuality in both the Jewish Testament and the Christian Testament (although it is more clearly condemned in the Tanakh). Since modern society is abandoning this condemnation due to the realization that homosexuals are born that way and it is not a "lifestyle choice," - or; sin - should the dogma of Sola Scriptura be abandoned, since the book is clearly wrong in this instance?

The condemnation of homosexuality never had anything to do with whether it was a "lifestyle choice" or whether you were "born that way".

Reformed Jews have altered their thinking on this issue, and accept homosexuals into the fullness of the faith without need of abstinence, rejection or forgiveness.

So what you're saying is that you won't be able to take a single step in hell without bumping into a Reformed Jew.

I see also, that more and more of the more liberal denominations are at least not condemning homosexuals - some are even performing wedding ceremonies, at the risk of losing their ordination.

Liberal denominations both have trouble retaining converts (why bother? Agnosticism has a better benefits package) and poor birth rates, so they tend to self-destruct in the long run. I'm not sure why following in their footsteps is such a big deal.

And, what about the role of women in ministry? In many denominations of Protestant and all of Catholic churches, women assume a secondary role in the Church under the "headship" (Paul's word) of men. Is it not time for this to evolve? For cryin' out loud - which gender tends to drive the bus on the issue of which church to attend? I would think at the least, it would make economic sense to allow women to become full members of the Church.

NORM

Indulgences also make economic sense.

On a more serious note though, the above statement is an implicit endorsement of status whoring, which has no place in a church. If you can't consider yourself a full member of a church unless you are eligible for priesthood then you are the one with the problem.

[Darth Executor]

I do not believe every Christian claims Divine Revelation. You are defining far differently then I. Looking forward to discussing it in the other thread.

If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.

[shunyadragon]

If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.

It is abundantly clear I am not a Christian. I am a Baha'i. I do not believe that individuals can claim 'Divine Revelation.' I believe that Christians believe in the 'Divine Revelation' of Jesus Christ.

[Darth Executor]

It is abundantly clear I am not a Christian.

Man you're narcissistic to the point of high comedy. What makes you think my comment was about you personally? You said "I do not believe every Christian claims Divine Revelation." That's what I was responding to. I never said I was talking about you personally.

[NormATive]

And in these two lines your perspective is perfectly encapsulated. You're only interested in conversations that promote your preconceived notions of what "evolved" religion looks like.

Well, that's not true. I can't help it that only a few have bothered to describe how they think religion has evolved. I described the experience in Judaism, and I don't believe I've said that it is the only way. I am anxiously awaiting your response.

You wouldn't recognize real aggiornamento ("bringing-up-to-date," a term St. John XXIII used to describe what he hoped Vatican II would accomplish) if it came up to you, introduced itself, and gave letters of introduction from every competent theologian of the past century.

Yes, actually Vatican II is a perfectly good example of some evolutionary changes (consequential, I'm sure) to the sacrament of Mass. But, I don't believe Vatican II addressed much substantive theological change. I could be wrong, but I think it was much later that the Catholic Church accepted evolution as compatible with Catholic teaching on Creation.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises r.e. homosexuality. Even with that failure of logic aside,

What failure? That the a Bible doesn't teach homosexuality is a sin, or that homosexuality is an orientation one is born with?

... you have a failure of fact: sola scriptura is not and never has been dogma. It has been a belief of Protestants for about 500 years, but it's never been pronounced dogma-- to my knowledge-- in any denomination that actually uses the word.

OK, let's not get hung up over semantics. Core beliefs. How's that? Would you not say that Sola Scriptura is a Core Belief of most Protestant denominations? Just as trinitarianism, virgin birth, etc.?

Is a man who is not a priest a full member of the church? Don't be such a clericalist.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean, here. What is a "clericalist?" I was talking about women in the Church. In Paul's letters, men are said to have "headship" over women. Many Protestant and Catholic (especially) have this core belief. Do you think this is something that is evolving?

It would be nice if you actually understood the theologies of the groups you're criticizing. It might make your critiques... you know... interesting. Christianity, and even historical Judaism, is built up around an encounter-- a deep personal relationship with the divine, not just an ethical "message". The sort of religion you suggest will never do more than tread water and so it will get swept along with every passing cultural current.

I think I understand the religions just fine. I think your bluster is a smoke screen because you are either uncomfortable with the question, or don't have a good answer. Or, perhaps you think Christianity is complete as is and is in no need of evolving. If so, just say so rather than trying to obfuscate the discussion.

But, if you think it should stay the same; why?

NORM

[Jedidiah]

I do not believe every Christian claims Divine Revelation. You are defining far differently then I. Looking forward to discussing it in the other thread.

I definitely define Christian differently than do you. As far as I am concerned every Christian recognizes the Bible as divine revelation. You do not have to be an inerrantist to know that the Bible is divinely inspired.

[NormATive]

Sorry, Darth, if you are talking to me. You are the only T-Webber I have on ignore, so I can't see what you post.

NORM

[Jedidiah]

I'm interested in any Christians who are anticipating the next evolutionary step in the religion.

Or, is the consensus that the faith is complete as is - no need to adjust core beliefs to a scientifically and culturally aware 21st century pew muffin?

Religion, as man's effort, certainly may evolve. Truth does not evolve.

For example, the Bible quite clearly condemns homosexuality in both the Jewish Testament and the Christian Testament (although it is more clearly condemned in the Tanakh). Since modern society is abandoning this condemnation due to the realization that homosexuals are born that way and it is not a "lifestyle choice," - or; sin - should the dogma of Sola Scriptura be abandoned, since the book is clearly wrong in this instance?

It is a pity you have Darth on ignore. He handled this quite well.

I was born with a heterosexual bent. My early intent was to seek sexual pleasure with women. That was sin pure and simple. Just because I wanted something did not mean (and still does not mean) that it is acceptable. The same thing is true (equally true) for homosexuals. Sin plain and simple. The Bible has not been proved to be, nor is it, wrong in this instance. Since you are blind to Darth let me quote him.

The condemnation of homosexuality never had anything to do with whether it was a "lifestyle choice" or whether you were "born that way".