How does it feel?

[Bonhoffer]

I have been reading through all of this thread for a few days now and I do find the majority of the posts quite interesting. I was wondering what all of your opinions on Canada are with respect to this topic of religion. (American, European and all other opinions are welcome )


Thanks

I dont know much about Canada. I know they have gay marriage, but thats about it. I would guess its probably fairly humanistic like the rest of the west. All I know about Canadian Christianity is Rod Hembree on Quick Study. Hes great!!

 

[ScottishJohn]

Another thing I would find quite interesting would be a study on how much the Christians within certain countries adhered to Christian values! It's all very well decrying the world for being secular and evil, but usually the Church falls well short of the mark.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Another thing I would find quite interesting would be a study on how much the Christians within certain countries adhered to Christian values! It's all very well decrying the world for being secular and evil, but usually the Church falls well short of the mark.

I do percieve a heck of a lock of Pharisees in the American church. Sadly the Pharisees get more press than those in the US who follow Jesus' message in full.

You get so called pro-lifers opposing abortion but supporting the death penalty!!
If I was leading a church where George W Bush was a member I would excommunicate him. He is no pro-lifer!

 

[ScottishJohn]

I do percieve a heck of a lock of Pharisees in the American church. Sadly the Pharisees get more press than those in the US who follow Jesus' message in full.

You get so called pro-lifers opposing abortion but supporting the death penalty!!
If I was leading a church where George W Bush was a member I would excommunicate him. He is no pro-lifer!

The contrast between the hard line many US Christians (and many Christians in the UK) take on certain sins, and the blind eye they pay to others is certainly something which undermines their position. These words from Revelation come to mind:

2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men,

4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.

However it is very easy to point out fault in others, and I think there are also words for the Church in the UK in Revelation:

15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

So much of what we do as 'Church' in this country is so BLAND. We often blame it on so many outide factors without actually taking responsibility for what is our own failing. WE are responsible for what the church is. No amount outside factors that we blame can have any effect on the Church unless we let it.

 

[miyako_1984]

Maybe somebody can think of a nation which scores a few positive points, but I cannot think of any which conduct themselves by Christian principles to any significant extent. Maybe a nation which did could not survive.

Wales rocks.

 

[ahab]

Hi VERITAS thanks for your question

Its very interesting to note the recent poll carried out for the BBC shows big majority support for Christianity in the UK in general. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4434096.stm
My personal opinion is that the biggest disruption has been caused by the liberals being so vociferous and aggressive in their agendas. As an example follow the Faith matters link I gave to the incitement to hatred law link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4675545.stm
The key passages are those such as this
Among people belonging to religions, a category which included Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and other faith groups, 43% were opposed to a ban, compared to 44% among people with "no religion".
This is what the report and article is supposed to be about, not gay clergy as the subheading says and comments on. Since when is sexuality part of religious tolerance and particular to western Christianity as opposed to any other religion as say Islam? 'Other' agendas distract from the great commission.
The true church, no matter what denomination or ministry is now having to step out in faith and sacrifical love to impact people with the gospel that God loves them. Its a great opportunity and a tough challenge.

peace

 

[Kehaar]

So much of what we do as 'Church' in this country is so BLAND. We often blame it on so many outide factors without actually taking responsibility for what is our own failing. WE are responsible for what the church is. No amount outside factors that we blame can have any effect on the Church unless we let it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ScottishJohn again.

Gah.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Its very interesting to note the recent poll carried out for the BBC shows big majority support for Christianity in the UK in general. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4434096.stm

I don't think this constitutes support. 2/3rds say that they were Christian, but only 17% of those thought their faith important enough to get to Church on a Sunday morning, and there is still no indicator of the proportion of THOSE people who actually put their faith into practise. If Christianity is relegated merely to a matter of heritage and birth rather than a living and active faith with a living and active God things then we are in a sorry state.

I don't think it is important that we have numbers. I think it is in a way good that congregations are declining. I would rather be part of a congregation of 50 of whome all 50 wanted to be there, and were passionate about their faith than one of 50 practising Christians in a congregation of 300. I think that it is more important for the church to be DOING than TALKING, and if we abandoned the teritorial model which the established church uses, withdrawing from areas which have decided that they are not interested enough to use their local church, then we could redirect millions into feeding the hungry and thirsty, housing strangers, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and those in prison. Perhaps if that is where we put the majority of our effort instead of constantly bickering over doctrine and maintaining victorian follies, then people might WANT to be part of the Christian faith.

My personal opinion is that the biggest disruption has been caused by the liberals being so vociferous and aggressive in their agendas. As an example follow the Faith matters link I gave to the incitement to hatred law link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4675545.stm
The key passages are those such as this
Among people belonging to religions, a category which included Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and other faith groups, 43% were opposed to a ban, compared to 44% among people with "no religion".
This is what the report and article is supposed to be about, not gay clergy as the subheading says and comments on. Since when is sexuality part of religious tolerance and particular to western Christianity as opposed to any other religion as say Islam? 'Other' agendas distract from the great commission.

I'm not sure if I have understood you correctly so you can correct me if I am charging off in the wrong direction!

I don't see any aggression in this article. I see results of a survey being published. The religious hate laws were only one part of that survey, as they were topical they formed the headline, but the rest of the survey concerned other religious issues. If we dislike the fact that sexuality is so often an issue when the church is discussed then surely the blame lies squarely with the Church for making such a disproportionate issue of sexuality. If you search BBC news for 'Church' there are 6 out of 30 stories which have the issue of Homosexuality and the Church in their headlines in the first three pages, this is because of the focus the Church has placed on the issue and not because of any agenda the media or liberals have. I don't see many Islamic groups campaigning or arguing in the same way about homosexuality as many Christian demoninations and groups do. You are right that other agendas distract from the great commission, but those agendas lie WITHIN the church and not without, and blame can be placed on both sides of the liberal conservative divide within the church.

 

[Tangnefedd]

One day it is will be as normal to have gay clergy as to have women priests, thank goodness. Jesus never condemned homosexuality so one could imagine it was no big deal to him.

Tolerance is what it is all about, none of us have the complete truth, so whatever makes us feel good faithwise is ok with me, providing it doesn't hurt others!

 

[ScottishJohn]

One day it is will be as normal to have gay clergy as to have women priests, thank goodness. Jesus never condemned homosexuality so one could imagine it was no big deal to him.

As far as these issues are concerned we can't really get in to discussing the details one way or the other because of CF rules. It should however be noted in a very general sense that Jesus did not come to give an exhaustive list of what is right and what is wrong.

Tolerance is what it is all about, none of us have the complete truth, so whatever makes us feel good faithwise is ok with me, providing it doesn't hurt others!

I agree that it is important for Christians to show tolerance to those outside the church - those who have rejected Christianity and chosen to live according to their own rules. (1 Corinthians 5:12) However we do have the complete truth - it is called the Bible, the only problem is that we cannot agree as a body of Christians as to what it means. What feels good may be the path of least resistance, it is just not necessarily what God commands.

 

[Tangnefedd]

The Bible is just a collection of writings, the authors trying hard to assess the mind of God, but there is absolutely no proof that they have done so!

 

[ScottishJohn]

The Bible is just a collection of writings, the authors trying hard to assess the mind of God, but there is absolutely no proof that they have done so!

In your last post you said that Jesus never condemned homosexuality so I presume that you accept the gospels. In which case IN the gospels Christ vouches for all of the old testament which he quotes from extenseively and refers to as the law.

Which just leaves the new testament which includes the gospels. Which I believe is divinely inspired.

 

[Tangnefedd]

I don't know if the Gospels, which were written after the death of Jesus tell the tale correctly, or talk him up. There are no independent manuscripts detailing the life and work of Jesus. Most of of take from the Bible the stuff that seems good to us and accords with our particular perspective, whether that is right or wrong.

A lot of the NT seemed to be the input of St Paul, I don't belief that arrogant little so and so was remotely divinely inspired, although he probably thought he was! As for Revelation, well poor St John must have very bad indigestion to come up with all that dream imagery, which has kept folk amused for centuries trying to fathom its meaning!

 

[Buttermilk]

I don't think this constitutes support. 2/3rds say that they were Christian, but only 17% of those thought their faith important enough to get to Church on a Sunday morning, .

Of the remaining 83% I am sure a percentage (by no means all, I'm not saying that) do think that their faith is important, and they do practice it, just not in a church setting - and that could be for many different reasons

 

[Bonhoffer]

A lot of the NT seemed to be the input of St Paul, I don't belief that arrogant little so and so was remotely divinely inspired, although he probably thought he was!

Why do you call St Paul arrogant? That is the last thing I would call him. Hes incredibly humble throughout his letters. He admits his sins and weakness. He even calls himself the worst of sinners. He constantly lifts up Christ and God, and some people might go as far as saying that he puts himself down. Read these mans words carefully. It is rubbish to call him arrogant.
I think people reject Pauls teachings because people find them a threat. They call people proud, selfish and self-rigtheous. This is why people are afraid of the gospel-because its brutally true about the state of humanity.
I dont think Paul is the one who is being arrogant. I think it is people who cant see that they are a sinner who needs a saviour!

 

[Kehaar]

I don't know if the Gospels, which were written after the death of Jesus tell the tale correctly, or talk him up. There are no independent manuscripts detailing the life and work of Jesus. Most of of take from the Bible the stuff that seems good to us and accords with our particular perspective, whether that is right or wrong.

With respect, if you distrust the authenticity of the gospels then how do you trust the resurrection of Christ? If that is in doubt then so is salvation, if Christ never rose from the dead, if there is no eternal life, then in what are we believing?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I don't know if the Gospels, which were written after the death of Jesus tell the tale correctly, or talk him up. There are no independent manuscripts detailing the life and work of Jesus.

I have to say that it is not my intention to offend, please take this as the honest question which it is meant to be. If you are not sure of any of the Bible in terms of authenticity, then what is it that we as Christians should believe in? I mean if one is to be a Christian, but discounts the only evidence of what Christ was and is and did and stood for, who are we followers of?

Most of of take from the Bible the stuff that seems good to us and accords with our particular perspective, whether that is right or wrong.

I believe in absolute truth. I believe that there is always a strong chance that we have misinterpreted that absolute truth, but I believe you either take the whole thing, and admit there are parts that you can't understand YET, OR dump the whole thing, and then I kind of lose track of where I am!

A lot of the NT seemed to be the input of St Paul, I don't belief that arrogant little so and so was remotely divinely inspired, although he probably thought he was!

I have to say that although St Paul is not always the best at PR, he never misses and hits the wall. I can honestly say (now that I have had some of the passages I couldn't make sense of explained for me!) that I have yet to read any of Pauls letters which do not make sense, and I KNOW that I have been helped immensley in my growth as a Christian through studying his letters.

As for Revelation, well poor St John must have very bad indigestion to come up with all that dream imagery, which has kept folk amused for centuries trying to fathom its meaning!

I think there is more to revelation than just the cryptic prophesies. Iike chapters 2 and 3 with the messages to the 7 churches. Theres a lot to take on board.

 

[oworm]

The Bible is just a collection of writings, the authors trying hard to assess the mind of God, but there is absolutely no proof that they have done so!

You forgot to put "IMO" at the end of your statement

 

[Tangnefedd]

There isn't any proof that would stand up in a court of law that the Bible is anything to do with God, so that is a fact, not just imo!

 

[theFijian]

Why do you call St Paul arrogant?

Paul called himself the least of all the apostles and the worst of all sinners. Arrogant?