question

[sunshine456]

I found this poll that debates ................

If Jesus suddenly came back to earth today, would he approve or disapprove of modern Christianity?

85% said disapprove.

Now I am thinking to myself about the word modern, and ultimately there is no debate with this question, simply because Christianity isn't modernized, nor has it changed and never will short of the will of GOD and his son lord JESUS.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Glass*Soul]

I found this poll that debates ................



85% said disapprove.

Now I am thinking to myself about the word modern, and ultimately there is no debate with this question, simply because Christianity isn't modernized, nor has it changed and never will short of the will of GOD and his son lord JESUS.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I would be interested in how you define Christianity. What is it about it that remains changeless?

If you're in the mood for a long, meaty read, I might suggest Hans Küng's Christianity: Essence, History, and Future. According to Küng Christianity has operated under differing dominant paradigms over the centuries. In brief, he characterizes them as:

1. Early Christian (apocalyptic)
2. Early church (Hellenistic)
   
3. Medieval (Roman Catholic)
4. Reformation (Protestant)
5. Enlightenment (modern)
6. Contemporary (ecumenical)

That would make the current paradigm post-modern, actually.

BTW, can we have a link to the poll?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I think Jesus would get a chuckle out of how some people analyze things to death.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I think Jesus would get a chuckle out of how some people analyze things to death.

I think he would get a chuckle out of people who imagine they are able to communicate his emotional state on the internet for him.

*falls down own rabbit hole*

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If the Jesus (described in the bible) came back...

...as someone who's read the entire bible (twice), I'd have to say he be undoubtedly disappointed with what people are doing in the churches these days.

He'd instantly write off the Catholic Church (in that the bible is very clear that you are to have a direct relationship with God and confess your sins to him, not a priest or any other member of the clergy).

He'd look unfavorably at certain denominations like the Baptists (along with some others) for intentionally misinterpreting the Hell doctrine in effort to scare children (and some adults for that matter) into believing their way

He'd probably shake his head and giggle at the Pentecostals for clinging to one piece of auxiliary doctrine (and a misinterpretation of said doctrine at that...I refer to the whole speaking in tongues thing of course)

Any Christian who supports SSM would have some explaining to do since, whether liberal Christians want to admit it or not, the bible does speak clearly on the subject. ...same goes for anyone who's pro-choice that identifies themselves as a Christian
(to clarify, these aren't my views, I'm simply speaking in terms of how the Jesus of the bible would view modern Christianity)

Christians who get all lofty and oppose the death penalty (and I've seen a few on these forums) and support the idea of keeping murderers alive, yeah...you might have some explaining to do to lol.

In all reality...this list could go on and on...If the stance is that the "Bible is the perfect word of God", then I can't think of a single denomination in modern times that hasn't either A) intentionally misconstrued it... or B) intentionally ignored the parts that are inconvenient (or that they feel make them look bad in front of other people)

 

[Marius27]

Any Christian who supports SSM would have some explaining to do since, whether liberal Christians want to admit it or not, the bible does speak clearly on the subject. ...same goes for anyone who's pro-choice that identifies themselves as a Christian
(to clarify, these aren't my views, I'm simply speaking in terms of how the Jesus of the bible would view modern Christianity)

Quite disagreeable. The arguments are weak at best, and the Bible itself says that marriage is the preferred route for those not blessed with celibacy. Jesus also never said a word on the subject.

What Jesus would absolutely object too, is how mistreated and ostracized gay people are by people using his name.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Quite disagreeable. The arguments are weak at best, and the Bible itself says that marriage is the preferred route for those not blessed with celibacy. Jesus also never said a word on the subject.

While you'll never find any red print in the bible speaking on the subject, you'll find numerous verses that do...and as I said before, if the position is that "the bible is the perfect word of God", to say that "well, since Jesus never specifically said anything about it" as justification, would essentially be saying that Jesus & God disagree on the matter (and since Jesus is God according to the bible)...I guess that would mean that he disagrees with himself then

As I said before, many of the more liberal Christians have a habit of ignoring the texts that they feel are inconvenient to their agenda and that they feel make them look bad in the eyes of their peers.

Just to clarify again, these aren't my positions on the subject, just simply presenting what the Bible has to say about it.
What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

What Jesus would absolutely object too, is how mistreated and ostracized gay people are by people using his name.

You're correct in that the Jesus of the Bible wouldn't mistreat and ostracize gay people, however, he would try to show them "the error of their ways" and encourage them to stop their "immoral behavior"...

Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery and prevented others from stoning her, sure, however, that wasn't an endorsement of adultery being "ok", if you remember how that story ended, it was with

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Essentially saying "I'll let it slide, I won't punish you...but don't do it again"

 

[Billnew]

People do tend to forget the old and the new are still in the bible.

Jesus would look at todays society and see much the same as he did in his time, the time before he came and the time after he rose up.

Humans haven't changed much in all the years. Sinners still point fingers at others sins to hide theirs.

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

knowing full well, no human can sin no more. All but Jesus have fallen short and will continue to fall short.

 

[Cearbhall]

He'd instantly write off the Catholic Church (in that the bible is very clear that you are to have a direct relationship with God and confess your sins to him, not a priest or any other member of the clergy).

Any Christian who supports SSM would have some explaining to do since, whether liberal Christians want to admit it or not, the bible does speak clearly on the subject.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is literal and infallible. They simply think that the humans who wrote it down made some changes, which is made obvious by the various manuscripts that exist.

 

[keith99]

People do tend to forget the old and the new are still in the bible.

Jesus would look at todays society and see much the same as he did in his time, the time before he came and the time after he rose up.

Humans haven't changed much in all the years. Sinners still point fingers at others sins to hide theirs.


knowing full well, no human can sin no more. All but Jesus have fallen short and will continue to fall short.

Sort of what I was thinking. He might well have days like some of mine where I keep muttering 'The is nothing new under the sun' and 'vanity of vanities, all is vanity'.

That so many today think that people today are different is telling.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is literal and infallible. They simply think that the humans who wrote it down made some changes, which is made obvious by the various manuscripts that exist.

Okay, so if the bible isn't literal, then why bother believing any of it? It's either perfect, or it's not...

If it's not, then there's no way of knowing which parts are true, and which ones were tampered with...

If that's the case, why bother giving yourself a pre-existing label based on a text you don't believe is infallible? Why not just make your own religion with rules that suit what you want to practice/believe (which incidentally is what people are already doing by taking the stance you describe).

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Wasn't Jesus PBUH, a Jew in the first place? He practiced Judaism? That meant the Law was still in play when he was around

 

[Cearbhall]

Okay, so if the bible isn't literal, then why bother believing any of it? It's either perfect, or it's not...

If it's not, then there's no way of knowing which parts are true, and which ones were tampered with...

And that's why they spend their lives trying to figure out the Truth. They just don't get it all from the "official" version of the Bible like some other Christians. They study other versions and translations and pay attention to the changes that have been made (and why they were made).

If that's the case, why bother giving yourself a pre-existing label based on a text you don't believe is infallible? Why not just make your own religion with rules that suit what you want to practice/believe (which incidentally is what people are already doing by taking the stance you describe).

That's not what Christianity means to them. The idea that you have to ignore the history of the Bible in order to be a Christian is an idea that's unfamiliar to me...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And that's why they spend their lives trying to figure out the Truth. They just don't get it all from the "official" version of the Bible like some other Christians. They study other versions and translations and pay attention to the changes that have been made (and why they were made).

...then I ask again, what's the point of giving themselves the label of Christian if, by what you're saying, they're not even sure what's true yet?

That's not what Christianity means to them. The idea that you have to ignore the history of the Bible in order to be a Christian is an idea that's unfamiliar to me...

So you're saying that if I were to say "I believe that a supreme dolphin lives on Jupiter and controls all of our lives, but I'm a Christian", my statement would be valid on the grounds that "that's what Christianity means to me"???

I don't think that's the case, Christianity is based on doctrine in terms of how it's defined, how can one still call themselves a Christian if they disagree with the text that defined "Christian" in the first place?