Signs of sanity in the US emerging?

[wesw]

oh come on meade, jesus was a bit more forgiving than you. peter denied him 3 times before the cock crowed and yet he was the rock upon which the church was built.

judgement is the lord s job, get off your high horse , as Obama would say....

[Big RR]

Indeed Wes; I think Christians (most any religious affiliation for the most part) are pilgrims--people on a journey of discovery, learning, and understanding. God (by whatever name is used) discloses him/her/itself to us in different ways at different rates; we don't all take the exactly same journey, but we do wind up at the same destination.

Meade--I will leave aside the generic description of Christian as we've had that discussion many times and disagree. However, when you mention various denominations and what people must believe to be part of them, I don't think most of us outside those denominations would have any idea as to what adherents must believe. In Roman Catholicism, for example, there is the position of individual conscience which embraces a lot more dissent than most of us on the outside (and probably many on the inside) would believe (the writings of Thomas Aquinas discuss this, so the idea goes back a long way). Many charismatic protestant denominations teach a combination of justification (acceptance of jesus) and sanctification (growth in the faith), but say once one is 'saved" (s)he will remain saved despite their behavior; hence one is part of the church even if they don't act differently.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nothing substantive to say, wesw? No? No. Situation normal then. That's a relief

Big RR - leaving that one huge caveat aside... yeah, you're right. But that's not rubato's point is it? The point (surely) is that the members of a denomination (presumably) do know what their denomination believes. If they then act in an absolutely contrary way, are they not denying what their denominational membership requires? This is regardless of whether you and I agree or disagree that tenet X is wrong or right. (See wesw - read carefully and you'll see no judgment there on my part).

I don't know about the preaching you hear, Big RR but surely expect you've heard the same as I at some time or another. I've been in different denominational services and bible classes and heard it said by many speakers (whether male or female) more or less this: "If we as Christians act in exactly the same way as unbelievers in the world, then by what right do we claim to be Christians or to be obeying the commands of Jesus?"

Isn't it one of the "by their fruits shall you know them" indicators? That, it seems to me, is what rubato was pointing to.

[Guinevere]

Relevant to this topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opini ... c=rss&_r=0.

An excerpt:

President Obama is a Christian (despite the fact that most Republicans apparently still believe that his “deep down” beliefs are Muslim, according to one poll conducted last year.)

In fact, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, there have only been four “religiously unaffiliated heads of state in American history,” the last being Rutherford B. Hayes, who left office in 1881. This, however, does not mean that they did not believe in God.

Perhaps the most famous unaffiliated president was Abraham Lincoln, who wrote in 1846:

“That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”

Now it is almost unconscionable to think of a president who didn’t believe in God. In fact, a poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that not believing in God was the most negative trait a presidential candidate could have among a variety of options, even more negative than having an extramarital affair.

Furthermore, in the House and Senate at the beginning of this session of Congress, 92 percent of members were Christian, 5 percent were Jewish, 0.4 percent each were Buddhist and Muslim and just 0.2 percent were unaffiliated. For those doing the math, that leaves only one member unaffiliated: Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But, it seems to severely cheapen the plight of those Christians whose lives were disrupted, destroyed or even taken by comparing them to American Christians who are simply seeing their reach and influence wane.

That's well said.

[Big RR]

Meade--no biblical cite but isn't it by faith you are saved, not by works, lest any man should boast. If jesus/god is willing to claim/save, redeem someone because e of their faith, who are your (or I or anyone else, to challenge that?).

Read The Great Divorce and see how some reject salvation because others they deem as unworthy are also saved.

[wesw]

you are both right

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--no biblical cite but isn't it by faith you are saved, not by works, lest any man should boast. If jesus/god is willing to claim/save, redeem someone because e of their faith, who are your (or I or anyone else, to challenge that?).

Read The Great Divorce and see how some reject salvation because others they deem as unworthy are also saved.

I've had to delete my first six responses. Let me try a gentle one. Can you please show me anything I've written that suggests that I am challenging Ephesians 2:8? That has nothing whatever to do with what rubato said and my belief that he said it correctly (before getting mean).

I've read the Great Divorce, thank you very much. How'd you feel if I recommend you read the Bible - and believe it?

Sorry that was a little peevish but let it stand.

[RayThom]

... (pick a religion, any religion) all seem to have a self-satisfied, righteous, smugness, about them. It's my (our) way or the highway. According to them there is very little wiggle room for the multitudes of doubters and/or free thinkers.

If there is an afterlife then their beliefs will have been proven correct with a great payday. No longer faith, but fact. But if not, they'll never know the difference. If that's the sum total of their faith and it has served them well, then so be it. However, as an atheist I just see their faith as a misplace trust in unproven stories, well written by time revered mystery writers.

There are more stars in the infinite universe than grains of sand in all the Earth's oceans. I cannot fathom a god so powerful and so omnipotent as to have created each and every one of them. Are religious fundamentalists right, are freethinkers right? Proselytizing whose side is most nearly correct is futile and just doesn't matter. In the end we all die not knowing absolutely. I have reconciled my existence and I am at peace, now and forever, knowing what I know. No better, nor no worse than any other human being on our planet -- past, present, or in the future.

As a great King once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fine - but not relevant

[Big RR]

what contradicts the quote from Ephesians? Perhaps this: "If we as Christians act in exactly the same way as unbelievers in the world, then by what right do we claim to be Christians or to be obeying the commands of Jesus?"

We are Christians because of our faith, not our works, and we claim to be christians because of the redemption and teachings of jesus, not because we act differently. Certainly chrisitans can act differently; maybe many even should. But must anyone act differently to qualify as a chrisitan? I don't see it. I'll leave the judgment to god, not any person.

As for your suggestion to read the bible, I'll take it in the spirit it was given.

Which brings us back to the beginning of this thread--what makes someone a christian and who can set the qualifications. Rube thinks a person, perhaps even he, can do so; I do not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

God already issued that judgment - Jesus said "Make disciples of all nations and teach them to obey my commands". Now I suppose if you think his commands included "act just like anyone else in the world" then you have an unarguable point.

We are not Christians because of faith - we are saved by faith through God's grace (and that not of ourselves etc). I am certainly glad to leave it to God to judge that a foul-mouthed, adulterer who molests children and sets light to kittens (for example) is not saved. I'll judge that such a person claiming to be a Christian is a liar. (And yes, the Bible teaches that we are not to judge those outside the church but only those inside it).

[Big RR]

And yes, the Bible teaches that we are not to judge those outside the church but only those inside it

If you feel you have some gift to look into the souls of your fellow humans and judge them as worthy of the label of christian or not, then rant on. I personally will just allow people to call themselves what they want, and leave the rest to the lord.

And if you want to take up the cause of rubato to endow him, who claims to have no religious belief, to do the same; go right ahead. But I still disagree.

[MajGenl.Meade]

<sigh> How is it that "we" always becomes "you" (meaning me) when you read it? Why do you bring up "look inside" when we are discussing external behavior? I don't care what people call themselves - except they are liars if they say they are Christians and they deny Christ (that's just plain common sense that).

[[Aside: I was in a brief argument on another site when someone claimed that the Confederate battle flag is a "Christian symbol". I quit early when the opposition seemed to gel around the position that people who like the flag are often Christian so therefore because they like the flag it must be a Christian symbol because they think it is. I'm glad to learn that the new definition of words is whatever one thinks they mean]].

If a member of my church commits adultery and it is found out, that person will be confronted (in love etc. etc. as Jesus instructed) and advised to cease that behavior or leave the church. If they persist, then they will be removed from the membership roll. I may not have any voice in that other than to vote in a meeting to confirm such a decision. It is certainly not my place to try to "cast out" an unbeliever from... what? The world? Walmart? ... if they happen to be an adulterer. The Bible says the congregation IS to judge the first (as to membership) but not the second. But maybe you discard that part of the Bible perhaps? Maybe not.

It has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with being a member of an organization and therefore conforming to the avowed purposes and expectations of that organization. Those expectations should be (not always are unfortunately but should be) the same as the expectations given in the Bible.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to acknowledge that Christian behavior should be based on Christ and not on the ways of the unbelieving world - that people should notice that a Christian is "different" (in a good way). I don't understand why you condemn rubato for saying that members of a group should act as if they are members of that group, doing whatever the "rules" (horrible word) say they should do.

I will acknowledge freely that there are times when I wish my behavior did conform more closely to that of some of my unbelieving friends who at any given moment might be a better example than me.

[wesw]

once again, peter denied Christ 3 times that night, as jesus knew that he would. yet he was a Christian.

you may not view this as anything substantive, just pulling one quote out.

you can be a believer and still be a sinner, you can have faith and be weak.

jesus came to help just these folks, do you send a doctor to a well man? (jesus)

things don t have to be complicated to be substantive.

Christ is both blindingly simple and unfathomably deep. can you define Christ?

[Lord Jim]

If a member of my church commits adultery and it is found out, that person will be confronted (in love etc. etc. as Jesus instructed) and advised to cease that behavior or leave the church. If they persist, then they will be removed from the membership roll. I may not have any voice in that other than to vote in a meeting to confirm such a decision.

That looks like pretty much what I said here:

it is up to the individual religions and sects within the religions (with whatever organizational system they have) to determine who is and is not a member of their church, and what is required for membership...

Which is an altogether different thing from:

If you don't go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices then you don't count as a member of that religion.

It's up to the organization to decide who is and is not a member in good standing of the organization, and to use whatever procedures it chooses to employ to make those determinations (Just as you have described that your Church would do in the example you gave)...

It is not up to His Unholiness, self-appointed Pope Rubato I to make those determinations...

[Big RR]

If a member of my church commits adultery and it is found out, that person will be confronted (in love etc. etc. as Jesus instructed) and advised to cease that behavior or leave the church. If they persist, then they will be removed from the membership roll. I may not have any voice in that other than to vote in a meeting to confirm such a decision. It is certainly not my place to try to "cast out" an unbeliever from... what? The world? Walmart? ... if they happen to be an adulterer. The Bible says the congregation IS to judge the first (as to membership) but not the second. But maybe you discard that part of the Bible perhaps? Maybe not.

And as Jim said, and I have said many, many times, if that is what your church does, then fine. It fully can set the rules for membership in its own church/denomination. But not all Christians are members of your church (or any other denomination for that matter).

I don't understand why you condemn rubato for saying that members of a group should act as if they are members of that group, doing whatever the "rules" (horrible word) say they should do.

Number one, I don't condemn, I just disagree and argue with him. Secondly, I do not give rubato (or anyone else for that matter) the authority to decide what those "rules" are. One need not go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices to be a member of the Christian faith regardless of whatever rubato says. Indeed, you even admit it is the teachings of jesus that define what Christians are and how they should act, and I have never seen jesus make statements on any of those things being required. If you look at the statements of jesus on the law, he says one must love god and one's neighbors--not pay tithes, not attend services, not make sacrifices (love is a sacrifice?). And Jesus' entire ministry is one of discovery, one in which the imperfect persons following his teachings come to know god better.

So to reiterate--any denomination may set whatever rules it wants to for membership. that is their business and prerogative, not mine. But to set rules for persons not claiming to be part of that denomination? No, I won't give them that authority.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I've always thought that religious affiliation should be measured by something more substantial than mere affirmation.

If you don't go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices then you don't count as a member of that religion

OK apparently we differ on our understanding of what rubato wrote - quoted above. To me, "religious affiliation" does not automatically mean "Christian" - it means a particular church/mosque/synagogue or what have you. (I'm trying to be more inclusive there and not restrict it just to "church"). ''

You could be right that he meant "Christian" when he wrote 'affiliation' and 'religion'. In which case, I'd disagree with the intent of what he wrote.

But then again, "Christianity" as such doesn't have services, or tithes, or required sacrifices. Churches do. And they differ in their required sacrifices. So I'll just stick to my understanding that rubato, LJ and both of us are in agreement - that organizations have a right to declare what their membership requirements are and those who don't meet the requirements are not really to be counted as members.

Ooo Ooo I'm practicing charity!

[RayThom]

"If you buy the premise... you buy the bit." Religious belief, just like comedy, is in the mind of the beholder. Either one is merely a means of sublimating that which we choose to believe.

Not one faith -- out of thousands -- truly owns a religious premise. However, and depending on the denomination you are affiliated, it is they who define the thrust, tone, scope and character of that premise that you hold to be true.

A rabbi, imam, priest, minister, and an atheist walk into a bar...

[oldr_n_wsr]

and it should conform to the teaching pattern of the particular Christian church to which one belongs

Many claim to be Christain but belong to no "church".
Are they less of a Christain than those that attend service at their desired meeting place? Even if they both follow the Christian teachings?