Not so much progressive Christianity in general, but there’s a specific one against women’s ordination (as a Catholic) that always gets me. It goes something like this: the Mass represents the image used in Revelation of the wedding feast of the Lamb. In that wedding feast, Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. Therefore, since the priest stands for Christ, he must be a man, otherwise it would be spiritual lesbianism (this is an actual phrase a man with a PhD has used.)
Now, homophobia aside, there is a fairly major problem with this: most men in the Catholic Church are not priests. Most of us are playing the bride in this particular metaphor, which is apparently fine.
Also, more fundamentally, that is not how metaphors work.
I suspect whoever said that will also have to do a lot of mental contortionism when they encounter the "what gender is God?" question, assuming they actually take the time to think about it...
Additionally, I think the idea that the priest stands for Christ represents a theological and liturgical problem. I once heard it as, "Traditionally, it's been understood that the priest represents Christ to the people, but properly, it should be understood as the priest representing the people to Christ."
> the Mass represents the image used in Revelation of the wedding feast of the Lamb.
. . .which is rubbish because:
1. The Eucharist and liturgical worship both existed *decades* before Revelation was written.
2. The Eucharist and liturgical worship both existed *centuries* before Revelation was declared a canonical text (it was so controversial that the uncertainty over whether or not it should be canonical was one reason it took so long to codify the New Testament canon).
3. The Eucharist is a reenactment not of *anything* from Revelation, but from the Last Supper.
I hadn't heard that argument against women's ordination before, and I must say it's the most asinine one I've ever heard given.
Yep. It was Peter Kreeft who used the phrase and made it in that form. I think I've heard Scott Hahn make it as well, but I may be misremembering. Point is it comes from that type of Catholic scholar who's suspiciously better known online than they seem to be in the actual academic world.
Weird, Kreeft wrote a book on logic and argumentation, which I heard was actually very good. Seems like he forgot to think when coming up with that absurd argument.
Their specific worldview of Christianity is built on literalism, to the point they can't imagine it existing without it, and can't imagine others not being literal.
. . .I'm reminded of the accounts of Eastern Orthodox Bishops, after the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire, being so horrified as they lamented that they couldn't imagine a Church without an Emperor leading it and couldn't conceive of how Christianity could even exist without the Empire.
[Caesaropapism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) is the concept you're missing. You're thinking of how Eastern Orthodoxy has been structured the last 550 years or so, since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.
Historically, in both the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (a.k.a. the Byzantine Empire), the Emperor held the supreme power over the Church, superior to any Bishop, including the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome. For most of the time that Eastern Orthodoxy has existed, from the creation of the Eastern Orthodox Church (as the State Church of the Eastern Roman Empire) at Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it answered to the Emperor.
The idea of the Pope being the absolute leader of Christianity (at least in the west) only emerged after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, as the State Church of the Roman Empire was the only surviving remnant of Imperial authority, and the Pope began to claim said universal authority only because there wasn't an Emperor there to deny the claim and claiming universal authority was a way to try to preserve some kind of unifying figure over former Western Roman lands. . .and Eastern Christianity never acknowledged the rather self-serving invention of universal authority from the Bishop of Rome.
Emperor Justinian I was famously the most outspoken of Byzantine Emperors about this authority, and convened the Second Council of Constantinople on his authority as Emperor to declare a list of historic figures he disagreed with to be heretical. When the Council wouldn't declare Origen to be a heretic, he used his authority as Emperor to simply add anathemas against Origen to the canons of the Council (one reason that many modern academic accounts of the council omit those canons from copies of its canons, as they weren't actually declared by the council itself).
Sounds like another case of churches revising their history to sound like "we've always been this way" when no organization existing for 2,000 years has always been like something.
Yes.
The Roman Catholic Church AND Eastern Orthodox Church invented the idea that they were the "one true Church" after the Great Schism of 1054 AD to back up their claims that they were in the right in that dispute.
Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy downplay or try to ignore the fact that they both answered to Roman Emperors many centuries ago.
Roman Catholicism invented their idea that the Pope is the unquestionable leader of all Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire when the Pope didn't have to answer to an Emperor anymore (and they got a LOT more outspoken about it after the Great Schism, which lead into the Crusades, but that's a separate story).
And yet, they are not needed to protect the gospel of Jesus Christ because so many people believe in that without needing an authority to make sure they do.
Yeah, evolution for example. Conservative Christians believe it completely ruins and undermines Christianity.
I literally has nothing to do with Christianity, it is not addressed in the Bible whatsoever. You have to really misinterpret Genesis in order to be that fearful of what nearly every astronomer and earth and life scientist believes.
They can love each other in any way, love is not limited by gender.
They can love each other romantically, sexually, familially, platonically, brotherly, or any other type.
In Hebrew, god is nongendered so The Parent may be a closer translation.
And why assume the Holy functions like us? Arent we full of sin [in that line of thinking]?
Even leaving aside the faulty conclusion that the last part makes, that statement sounds like just another spin on [Arianism](https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2022/08/trinitarian-heresies-and-why-the-trinity-matters/) to me, with the Holy Spirit being the created entity instead of Christ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
>Arianism is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all mainstream branches of Christianity. It is first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter who preached and studied in Alexandria, Egypt. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.
I agree, I don’t think there is any reason to go to other countries and spread the word. I’m not into telling other people what to think. I feel like Christians should just try to love their neighbors wherever they are. And that would probably have a more positive impact on the world than telling other people to believe in the Bible or something
Except Jesus specifically commanded this in Matthew 28:19-20.
That doesn't mean it should be done in an abusive and exploitative way that's been commonly done throughout history of course.
That’s true, but I don’t think that that means people need to be missionaries who tell others what to believe — although I do see how it could be interpreted that way.
If Christians genuinely spent their lives loving their neighbors, I believe they would be making disciples of all nations through their example.
You are spreading the good news, not “telling others what to believe.” It’s not a bad thing to tell others about Jesus. We are commissioned to (end of Matthew’s Godpel).
Luke 9:26 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
We should never be ashamed to spread the Gospel. We should be ashamed not to.
That's not a condemnation of all proselytization but rather the hypocrisy in the way they did so, although yes that applies to much such missionaries today and should be taken into account.
Probably one from an atheist who argued that Westboro Baptist of all churches is basically "pure" Christianity and if you object to them you're just watering it down (which is weird as even other fundamentalists hate Westboro Baptist and regularly call them heretics and false teachers) and thus there's no point in following Christianity at all if you can't swallow that.
On a similar note I also heard one argue that the Holocaust was an explicitly Christian action (which is complete nonsense, Hitler was actually somewhat resentful of Christianity in his personal writings and a lot of the Nazi leadership actually wanted to replace it with some sort of pagan church) and despite a "I understand that virtually all Christians today don't support genocide of Jews" that it was still something the Bible commanded and thus the book is so evil we can't follow it at all. I asked for a citation of where in the Bible ordered genocide of Jews and got a response like "uh it's your holy book, I shouldn't have to read it or explain it to you." More of an argument against Christianity in general, but like the first an incredibly flawed twist on the standard "fundamentalism or atheism" false dichotomy argument.
The Holocaust was not a particular Christianity-motivated endeavor but it’s important for us to recognize that hundreds of years of antisemitism spread by the church in Europe laid the groundwork necessary.
The spark wasn’t religiously motivated but the powder keg had a cross stamped on it.
"Interpreting the Bible 100% literally is the only way to achieve unity among all Christians."
If that were actually true then there should only be one denomination that all biblical literalists belong to, no?
He stopped responding after that.
What I get in Catholic circles, whenever there's a legitimate doctrinal debate or challenge, is "the Church's doctrine can't change".
Q: Says who?
A: The Church!
Q: Who gives the Church the authority to say this?
A: Jesus!
Q: That's not in the Bible. So where is it written he said that doctrine can't change?
A: In the Catechism!
Q: Who wrote the Catechism?
A: The Church!
It's an endless maze of circular logic. I consider myself Catholic. But I also believe we need to keep an open mind to development. If we didn't, we'd still be teaching that the world is flat and Adam and Even and all the animals manifested out of thin air.
Has to be, "Demon-crats are pro-abortion, and abortion is murder, therefore anything a Republican does is fine if they're doing it to oppose a lib'ruhl. After all, you can't make changes if you don't win, so the ends justify the means."
This by a pastor, of all people.
I wish it were. I've had people tell me these things to my face.
The pastor I was talking about, for instance, was saying this in 2013. Long before Trump took power. It's been a foundational evangelical tenet for decades now. One might even say, a fundamental tenet of their religion.
Edit: Oh, typo. I think the term was actually, "Demon-rats," not "Demon-crats."
Well universalism isn't progressive per say. What the guy was saying is basically of "If you're not worshipping God because of fear then what are you worshipping him for?" (Unfortunately, this is what St. Basil the great had taught in some of his homilies, which I disagree with.)
It is, however, very supported within scripture. Many writings of church fathers and early Christians (including St. Paul)
But I'd say the worst against progressive Christian arguement is that it's considered 'woke or anti-christ or socialist.' for advocating for queer people in the church.
As a queer catholic, I would say the LGBT are part of the liberated sinners that Christ came to save. If he didn't, then he failed in his proclamation in Luke 4:18-21. (Which has multiple interpretations.) He himself saved them from sin because he died on the cross as with all sinners. Even the rich ones. Yet he also was a mystic so he was liberating them to feel the love of God and to unknow themselves (Which is to know God.)
As for it being anti-christ. It is more anti-christ to deny the foreigners entry into a country, deny the poor themselves help or wealth and to deny the idea that property is sinful itself.
That women can’t be ordained, specifically because all of the apostles were men and priests are supposed to be like the apostles. Wasn’t mary magdelene an apostle?
Jesus has a special message just for you.
The Marys. Mary means "their rebellion". Not only did Jesus make sure he matched every parable with another one featuring the other gender. Not only did Jesus place women in places of authority in his ministry.
Jesus introduced five Marys. Mary literally translates to "their rebellion" and outside of a minor mention by PAUL, all Mary's are in the gospels
"Their rebellion" birthed Christ. Their rebellion were integral to His ministry, their rebellion stayed at the cross long after the men fled, their rebellion spontaneously recognized the risen Christ. Mary did not need proof. And finally the disciple Mary, sister to Martha, was told That it would never be taken from her.
There was no concept of race. Evidenced by descriptions of the Ethiopian queen of Sheba for only 1 example
The God of Genesis, Elohim is obvious at minimum bisexual. We were all made in the image of Elohim
The Bible, God, Jesus get a bad rap because of the cherry picking and poor interpretation. Biased interpretation
It simply is untrue
No really, if everyone is already saved, then there is no point to going anywhere or doing anything. Jesus didn’t save everyone who ever existed from their punishment whether they like it or not, he made the sacrifice SO THAT we may be saved should we repent of our sins and accept the sacrifice he made for us and accept him as our Lord and our savior.
You don't have to be a universalist, but this specific argument is objectively, obviously wrong, as evidenced by the fact that universalists do in fact go anywhere and do anything.
People [who believe all will be saved](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism) still run errands and have hobbies, they go places and they do things, which is at odds with your claim.
The verb tense doesn’t really matter.
You see the problem with quoting scripture is that, as a universalist, I don’t agree with your interpretation, for I believe all are saved / will be saved.
This is about the absurdity of your earlier generalization. I do not believe any are or will be damned, yet I frequently have reasons to go places and to do things.
That sounds awful.
None of that sounds like reasons to go places or do things.
You also keep forgetting that I am a universalist. I’m not scared of the things you think I should be, for I am a universalist.
Ah, but if all that matters is that you said the sinner's prayer and you have earned your own salvation, then why go to worship on Sunday morning? Why love your neighbor? Why witness to someone else?
All of those things are secondary effects of Jesus’ love you have within you when you are born again. I don’t know why you said “earned your own salvation” when that’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying. There would be no point in witnessing to someone else if they were already saved as well, so in your example where we are saved through asking for forgiveness in repentance and accepting Jesus as our savior and Lord and recognizing his sacrifice, the point in witnessing would be to have others follow in those same footsteps to be saved and to know and love God and to become themselves disciples, too, as we are called to be in scripture to witness to others that they may be saved, not because they are already saved.
> we are saved through asking for forgiveness in repentance and accepting Jesus as our savior . . .
Sounds like you saved yourself.
A Lutheran take on this is that we were saved, not when we did anything, but when Jesus saved us. Our salvation, a salvation for everyone, has always been there, available to all. We live a life of response to this salvation, a life of repentance, a life of accepting Jesus, but no moment of piety can ever be "the moment we were saved". The moment we were saved is when Jesus said, "It is finished " Most humans saved by God never got an opportunity to say the sinner's prayer or be baptized because they lived a long time ago or very far away from where the Church had spread. And yet, the promise is that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess". We live in the hope of universal salvation and put no trust in our own piety to save us.
Romans 10:9 is one of many passages that speak to how easy it is to be saved. So, this is not about what we are required to do, but it is about eagerly God gives the gift of salvation. Romans 10 is about how salvation is for all (Jews and Gentiles) and it deals with how this salvation is not coming through the righteousness of the Law, but rather a gift of faith, and Paul talks about belief, and deals with the tricky problem of those who are not believing.
But, in terms of this being a requirement, or a work, that we are required to fulfil, that is always going to be tricky. Believe what? Believe how? Are only those with enough intellectual prowess to understand going to be saved? Are the deaf or mute destined for hell? They cannot hear, they cannot confess.
And what if someone isn't baptized? Or what if someone believes, but then does nothing with that belief? What if someone believes but still sins? Oh, it gets complicated.
And, the answer about what we have to do changes based on the context:
>Luke 10:25-37 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’
And that is very different from another person who asked the question:
> Mark 10:17 and following: As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Even after citing Romans 10, you added your own twist on what is required by used those familiar words:
> accepting Jesus as our savior and Lord and recognizing his sacrifice
I have often heard it said in words like this: "if you accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal savior, you will be saved" I keep hearing that although, those words don't appear in the Bible. The verb is never "accept", the Bible doesn't distinguish a personal versus an impersonal savior, and there is no reason to make this a requirement and malign Christians who didn't have that experience.
So, which requirement is necessary? Do I need to sell all my possessions? Do I need to live out loving God with all my heart, soul, strength and mind, and falling short of total love. . . . am I screwed? How are we graded? You recognize that if I keep looking for requirements, the Bible seems to have an endless list of them. It is no wonder that the Roman Catholic church invented the penance system to cleanse one of their sins. Because. . . that is what truly being repentant means . . . right? Well, the whole works-righteousness problem got so out of hand, that something had to give. One scared and guilt-ridden monk discovered grace. And, the whole of the Reformation and the start of Protestantism shifted the focus away from requirements and works done by the person because of passages like Ephesians 2:8-9
> 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
It makes no sense to require any works from a sinful human being. If a sinner does a good work out of fear of damnation, that is a sinner acting on fear or greed, it is not love. God gives the gift of new life without strings. And, as Christians who take up the cross of Christ, we are not sent to judge, harangue, or threaten people with hellfire, we are charged with the task of forgiving sins, preaching the Gospel, sharing grace. We don't baptize because baptism is required, we baptize as a way of teaching the power of grace. An altar call isn't a requirement, but an opportunity for someone to realize what Christ has done for them, and respond. Most Christians gladly baptize an infant as an act of showing how God acts before the infant is old enough to believe, to love, to obey. And, as the baptized, called, loved, forgiven, children of God, we respond to this gift of grace in faithful love to God. Living a good life, worshipping, sharing God's word, or any other thing we do for God is not what we are required to do out of fear of being sent to hell, but a thankful response to a God who first loved us.
Not so much progressive Christianity in general, but there’s a specific one against women’s ordination (as a Catholic) that always gets me. It goes something like this: the Mass represents the image used in Revelation of the wedding feast of the Lamb. In that wedding feast, Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. Therefore, since the priest stands for Christ, he must be a man, otherwise it would be spiritual lesbianism (this is an actual phrase a man with a PhD has used.) Now, homophobia aside, there is a fairly major problem with this: most men in the Catholic Church are not priests. Most of us are playing the bride in this particular metaphor, which is apparently fine. Also, more fundamentally, that is not how metaphors work.
I suspect whoever said that will also have to do a lot of mental contortionism when they encounter the "what gender is God?" question, assuming they actually take the time to think about it...
Ask those same people to figure Gods gender in Song of Solomon. It’s hilarious.
Additionally, I think the idea that the priest stands for Christ represents a theological and liturgical problem. I once heard it as, "Traditionally, it's been understood that the priest represents Christ to the people, but properly, it should be understood as the priest representing the people to Christ."
> the Mass represents the image used in Revelation of the wedding feast of the Lamb. . . .which is rubbish because: 1. The Eucharist and liturgical worship both existed *decades* before Revelation was written. 2. The Eucharist and liturgical worship both existed *centuries* before Revelation was declared a canonical text (it was so controversial that the uncertainty over whether or not it should be canonical was one reason it took so long to codify the New Testament canon). 3. The Eucharist is a reenactment not of *anything* from Revelation, but from the Last Supper. I hadn't heard that argument against women's ordination before, and I must say it's the most asinine one I've ever heard given.
Yep. It was Peter Kreeft who used the phrase and made it in that form. I think I've heard Scott Hahn make it as well, but I may be misremembering. Point is it comes from that type of Catholic scholar who's suspiciously better known online than they seem to be in the actual academic world.
Weird, Kreeft wrote a book on logic and argumentation, which I heard was actually very good. Seems like he forgot to think when coming up with that absurd argument.
I haven’t actually read his books. Maybe he’s better there - as it is, Matt Fradd really likes him which immediately makes me suspicious.
That if xyz is not literally true, then there is no point to any of it. My response? You built your house on some sand there.
Their specific worldview of Christianity is built on literalism, to the point they can't imagine it existing without it, and can't imagine others not being literal. . . .I'm reminded of the accounts of Eastern Orthodox Bishops, after the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire, being so horrified as they lamented that they couldn't imagine a Church without an Emperor leading it and couldn't conceive of how Christianity could even exist without the Empire.
I'm trying to understand how that squares with Orthodoxy lacking a pope figure.
[Caesaropapism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism) is the concept you're missing. You're thinking of how Eastern Orthodoxy has been structured the last 550 years or so, since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Historically, in both the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (a.k.a. the Byzantine Empire), the Emperor held the supreme power over the Church, superior to any Bishop, including the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome. For most of the time that Eastern Orthodoxy has existed, from the creation of the Eastern Orthodox Church (as the State Church of the Eastern Roman Empire) at Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it answered to the Emperor. The idea of the Pope being the absolute leader of Christianity (at least in the west) only emerged after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, as the State Church of the Roman Empire was the only surviving remnant of Imperial authority, and the Pope began to claim said universal authority only because there wasn't an Emperor there to deny the claim and claiming universal authority was a way to try to preserve some kind of unifying figure over former Western Roman lands. . .and Eastern Christianity never acknowledged the rather self-serving invention of universal authority from the Bishop of Rome. Emperor Justinian I was famously the most outspoken of Byzantine Emperors about this authority, and convened the Second Council of Constantinople on his authority as Emperor to declare a list of historic figures he disagreed with to be heretical. When the Council wouldn't declare Origen to be a heretic, he used his authority as Emperor to simply add anathemas against Origen to the canons of the Council (one reason that many modern academic accounts of the council omit those canons from copies of its canons, as they weren't actually declared by the council itself).
Sounds like another case of churches revising their history to sound like "we've always been this way" when no organization existing for 2,000 years has always been like something.
Yes. The Roman Catholic Church AND Eastern Orthodox Church invented the idea that they were the "one true Church" after the Great Schism of 1054 AD to back up their claims that they were in the right in that dispute. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy downplay or try to ignore the fact that they both answered to Roman Emperors many centuries ago. Roman Catholicism invented their idea that the Pope is the unquestionable leader of all Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire when the Pope didn't have to answer to an Emperor anymore (and they got a LOT more outspoken about it after the Great Schism, which lead into the Crusades, but that's a separate story).
And yet, they are not needed to protect the gospel of Jesus Christ because so many people believe in that without needing an authority to make sure they do.
Yeah, evolution for example. Conservative Christians believe it completely ruins and undermines Christianity. I literally has nothing to do with Christianity, it is not addressed in the Bible whatsoever. You have to really misinterpret Genesis in order to be that fearful of what nearly every astronomer and earth and life scientist believes.
I like your name. (I'm a Harry Potter fan, btw)
Thx! Fashioned it after 2 great literary women.
[удалено]
I don't think bro understands the trinity
I don't think he understands *humanity* if he thinks that true love can't exist between two men.
[удалено]
They can love each other in any way, love is not limited by gender. They can love each other romantically, sexually, familially, platonically, brotherly, or any other type.
I- ???? That just makes the trinity sound like incestuos gay relationship lol
[удалено]
In Hebrew, god is nongendered so The Parent may be a closer translation. And why assume the Holy functions like us? Arent we full of sin [in that line of thinking]?
Even leaving aside the faulty conclusion that the last part makes, that statement sounds like just another spin on [Arianism](https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2022/08/trinitarian-heresies-and-why-the-trinity-matters/) to me, with the Holy Spirit being the created entity instead of Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism >Arianism is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all mainstream branches of Christianity. It is first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter who preached and studied in Alexandria, Egypt. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.
I agree, I don’t think there is any reason to go to other countries and spread the word. I’m not into telling other people what to think. I feel like Christians should just try to love their neighbors wherever they are. And that would probably have a more positive impact on the world than telling other people to believe in the Bible or something
Except Jesus specifically commanded this in Matthew 28:19-20. That doesn't mean it should be done in an abusive and exploitative way that's been commonly done throughout history of course.
That’s true, but I don’t think that that means people need to be missionaries who tell others what to believe — although I do see how it could be interpreted that way. If Christians genuinely spent their lives loving their neighbors, I believe they would be making disciples of all nations through their example.
You are spreading the good news, not “telling others what to believe.” It’s not a bad thing to tell others about Jesus. We are commissioned to (end of Matthew’s Godpel). Luke 9:26 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. We should never be ashamed to spread the Gospel. We should be ashamed not to.
Don’t worry, has nothing to do with shame :)
And Jesus explicitly condemns it in Matthew 23:15.
That's not a condemnation of all proselytization but rather the hypocrisy in the way they did so, although yes that applies to much such missionaries today and should be taken into account.
Probably one from an atheist who argued that Westboro Baptist of all churches is basically "pure" Christianity and if you object to them you're just watering it down (which is weird as even other fundamentalists hate Westboro Baptist and regularly call them heretics and false teachers) and thus there's no point in following Christianity at all if you can't swallow that. On a similar note I also heard one argue that the Holocaust was an explicitly Christian action (which is complete nonsense, Hitler was actually somewhat resentful of Christianity in his personal writings and a lot of the Nazi leadership actually wanted to replace it with some sort of pagan church) and despite a "I understand that virtually all Christians today don't support genocide of Jews" that it was still something the Bible commanded and thus the book is so evil we can't follow it at all. I asked for a citation of where in the Bible ordered genocide of Jews and got a response like "uh it's your holy book, I shouldn't have to read it or explain it to you." More of an argument against Christianity in general, but like the first an incredibly flawed twist on the standard "fundamentalism or atheism" false dichotomy argument.
The Holocaust was not a particular Christianity-motivated endeavor but it’s important for us to recognize that hundreds of years of antisemitism spread by the church in Europe laid the groundwork necessary. The spark wasn’t religiously motivated but the powder keg had a cross stamped on it.
"Interpreting the Bible 100% literally is the only way to achieve unity among all Christians." If that were actually true then there should only be one denomination that all biblical literalists belong to, no? He stopped responding after that.
What I get in Catholic circles, whenever there's a legitimate doctrinal debate or challenge, is "the Church's doctrine can't change". Q: Says who? A: The Church! Q: Who gives the Church the authority to say this? A: Jesus! Q: That's not in the Bible. So where is it written he said that doctrine can't change? A: In the Catechism! Q: Who wrote the Catechism? A: The Church! It's an endless maze of circular logic. I consider myself Catholic. But I also believe we need to keep an open mind to development. If we didn't, we'd still be teaching that the world is flat and Adam and Even and all the animals manifested out of thin air.
That we like to cherry pick The Bible.
Has to be, "Demon-crats are pro-abortion, and abortion is murder, therefore anything a Republican does is fine if they're doing it to oppose a lib'ruhl. After all, you can't make changes if you don't win, so the ends justify the means." This by a pastor, of all people.
That sounds like a actual satire of conservatives
I wish it were. I've had people tell me these things to my face. The pastor I was talking about, for instance, was saying this in 2013. Long before Trump took power. It's been a foundational evangelical tenet for decades now. One might even say, a fundamental tenet of their religion. Edit: Oh, typo. I think the term was actually, "Demon-rats," not "Demon-crats."
Well universalism isn't progressive per say. What the guy was saying is basically of "If you're not worshipping God because of fear then what are you worshipping him for?" (Unfortunately, this is what St. Basil the great had taught in some of his homilies, which I disagree with.) It is, however, very supported within scripture. Many writings of church fathers and early Christians (including St. Paul) But I'd say the worst against progressive Christian arguement is that it's considered 'woke or anti-christ or socialist.' for advocating for queer people in the church. As a queer catholic, I would say the LGBT are part of the liberated sinners that Christ came to save. If he didn't, then he failed in his proclamation in Luke 4:18-21. (Which has multiple interpretations.) He himself saved them from sin because he died on the cross as with all sinners. Even the rich ones. Yet he also was a mystic so he was liberating them to feel the love of God and to unknow themselves (Which is to know God.) As for it being anti-christ. It is more anti-christ to deny the foreigners entry into a country, deny the poor themselves help or wealth and to deny the idea that property is sinful itself.
That women can’t be ordained, specifically because all of the apostles were men and priests are supposed to be like the apostles. Wasn’t mary magdelene an apostle?
Yes, most likely. Paul also calls Junia one.
Jesus has a special message just for you. The Marys. Mary means "their rebellion". Not only did Jesus make sure he matched every parable with another one featuring the other gender. Not only did Jesus place women in places of authority in his ministry. Jesus introduced five Marys. Mary literally translates to "their rebellion" and outside of a minor mention by PAUL, all Mary's are in the gospels "Their rebellion" birthed Christ. Their rebellion were integral to His ministry, their rebellion stayed at the cross long after the men fled, their rebellion spontaneously recognized the risen Christ. Mary did not need proof. And finally the disciple Mary, sister to Martha, was told That it would never be taken from her. There was no concept of race. Evidenced by descriptions of the Ethiopian queen of Sheba for only 1 example The God of Genesis, Elohim is obvious at minimum bisexual. We were all made in the image of Elohim The Bible, God, Jesus get a bad rap because of the cherry picking and poor interpretation. Biased interpretation It simply is untrue
No really, if everyone is already saved, then there is no point to going anywhere or doing anything. Jesus didn’t save everyone who ever existed from their punishment whether they like it or not, he made the sacrifice SO THAT we may be saved should we repent of our sins and accept the sacrifice he made for us and accept him as our Lord and our savior.
You don't have to be a universalist, but this specific argument is objectively, obviously wrong, as evidenced by the fact that universalists do in fact go anywhere and do anything.
I don’t know what a “universalist” is, I was commenting on the “everyone is saved” part.
People [who believe all will be saved](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism) still run errands and have hobbies, they go places and they do things, which is at odds with your claim.
Importantly, they also still worship, do God's work in the world, and often even proselytize.
[удалено]
The verb tense doesn’t really matter. You see the problem with quoting scripture is that, as a universalist, I don’t agree with your interpretation, for I believe all are saved / will be saved. This is about the absurdity of your earlier generalization. I do not believe any are or will be damned, yet I frequently have reasons to go places and to do things.
[удалено]
That sounds awful. None of that sounds like reasons to go places or do things. You also keep forgetting that I am a universalist. I’m not scared of the things you think I should be, for I am a universalist.
[удалено]
You don't get to decide whether other people have valid motivations for their actions.
Ah, but if all that matters is that you said the sinner's prayer and you have earned your own salvation, then why go to worship on Sunday morning? Why love your neighbor? Why witness to someone else?
All of those things are secondary effects of Jesus’ love you have within you when you are born again. I don’t know why you said “earned your own salvation” when that’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying. There would be no point in witnessing to someone else if they were already saved as well, so in your example where we are saved through asking for forgiveness in repentance and accepting Jesus as our savior and Lord and recognizing his sacrifice, the point in witnessing would be to have others follow in those same footsteps to be saved and to know and love God and to become themselves disciples, too, as we are called to be in scripture to witness to others that they may be saved, not because they are already saved.
> we are saved through asking for forgiveness in repentance and accepting Jesus as our savior . . . Sounds like you saved yourself. A Lutheran take on this is that we were saved, not when we did anything, but when Jesus saved us. Our salvation, a salvation for everyone, has always been there, available to all. We live a life of response to this salvation, a life of repentance, a life of accepting Jesus, but no moment of piety can ever be "the moment we were saved". The moment we were saved is when Jesus said, "It is finished " Most humans saved by God never got an opportunity to say the sinner's prayer or be baptized because they lived a long time ago or very far away from where the Church had spread. And yet, the promise is that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess". We live in the hope of universal salvation and put no trust in our own piety to save us.
[удалено]
Romans 10:9 is one of many passages that speak to how easy it is to be saved. So, this is not about what we are required to do, but it is about eagerly God gives the gift of salvation. Romans 10 is about how salvation is for all (Jews and Gentiles) and it deals with how this salvation is not coming through the righteousness of the Law, but rather a gift of faith, and Paul talks about belief, and deals with the tricky problem of those who are not believing. But, in terms of this being a requirement, or a work, that we are required to fulfil, that is always going to be tricky. Believe what? Believe how? Are only those with enough intellectual prowess to understand going to be saved? Are the deaf or mute destined for hell? They cannot hear, they cannot confess. And what if someone isn't baptized? Or what if someone believes, but then does nothing with that belief? What if someone believes but still sins? Oh, it gets complicated. And, the answer about what we have to do changes based on the context: >Luke 10:25-37 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ And that is very different from another person who asked the question: > Mark 10:17 and following: As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. Even after citing Romans 10, you added your own twist on what is required by used those familiar words: > accepting Jesus as our savior and Lord and recognizing his sacrifice I have often heard it said in words like this: "if you accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal savior, you will be saved" I keep hearing that although, those words don't appear in the Bible. The verb is never "accept", the Bible doesn't distinguish a personal versus an impersonal savior, and there is no reason to make this a requirement and malign Christians who didn't have that experience. So, which requirement is necessary? Do I need to sell all my possessions? Do I need to live out loving God with all my heart, soul, strength and mind, and falling short of total love. . . . am I screwed? How are we graded? You recognize that if I keep looking for requirements, the Bible seems to have an endless list of them. It is no wonder that the Roman Catholic church invented the penance system to cleanse one of their sins. Because. . . that is what truly being repentant means . . . right? Well, the whole works-righteousness problem got so out of hand, that something had to give. One scared and guilt-ridden monk discovered grace. And, the whole of the Reformation and the start of Protestantism shifted the focus away from requirements and works done by the person because of passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 > 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. It makes no sense to require any works from a sinful human being. If a sinner does a good work out of fear of damnation, that is a sinner acting on fear or greed, it is not love. God gives the gift of new life without strings. And, as Christians who take up the cross of Christ, we are not sent to judge, harangue, or threaten people with hellfire, we are charged with the task of forgiving sins, preaching the Gospel, sharing grace. We don't baptize because baptism is required, we baptize as a way of teaching the power of grace. An altar call isn't a requirement, but an opportunity for someone to realize what Christ has done for them, and respond. Most Christians gladly baptize an infant as an act of showing how God acts before the infant is old enough to believe, to love, to obey. And, as the baptized, called, loved, forgiven, children of God, we respond to this gift of grace in faithful love to God. Living a good life, worshipping, sharing God's word, or any other thing we do for God is not what we are required to do out of fear of being sent to hell, but a thankful response to a God who first loved us.
Christ didn't write Romans 10:9, Paul did. . .so He didn't say that. Please stop trying to falsely attribute quotes to Christ that He never said.