If they taught what Jesus taught and practiced what Jesus practiced, things might be different.
But they do the opposite. They are the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus called out in Matthew 23.
Jesus isn’t real.
He’s a bunch of stories stolen from other religions. Others walked on water and turned water into wine first.These are common parlor tricks.
It’s well accepted that Jesus was a historical person. Now how much you believe the miracles/etc attributed to him is a different matter entirely. Either way, the teaching and philosophy attributed to him are extremely powerful, and just as relevant today as they were in 27~30 AD.
He states with no basis for his claims.
“They”?
Yes. They. All Christians. When the Golden God gets to sic goons on protesters to go across the street and hold an upside down Bible in front of a church, and Christians don’t ALL disavow him and his supporters…
Then they ALL prove they’ve learned NOTHING from all of that religous “practice”. If being active in a religion means you do not speak out against actual, literal and present evil, you have LOST the plot. Entirely. Completely.
The evangelicals that support Trump should’ve been ACTIVELY shunned by the rest of Chriatianity. Literally labeled believers in evil. Satan followers. But you all only seem to practice that “do not judge” business when it comes to outright evil people! Nono, the LGBTQ+ community is going to Hell, but Trump deserves forgiveness!
Give me a break… Christians who “need” church are some of the scummiest people on this planet.
There are billions of Christians. This is stupid.
There are billions of Christians… and most of them are on the dumber side of humanity.
Remember, there are billions MORE of non-Christians. I spoke of actual things Christians ACTUALLY DO, … and your defense is, “butbut there are a lot of them!” Yes. There IS a lot of morons in the world. You have proven nothing except that you want to biased for Christians.
You think that a majority of humans are dumber than most humans, which says about as much as I think I need to know about your critical thinking skills.
My defense (defense of what?) was not “butbut there are a lot of them!” (why did you use “there are” and then “there is” in subsequent sentences?). Rather than defending anything, I was pointing out how you wrote something stupid. The larger the group you are talking about, the less precise you can be and the less likely what you are saying is accurate. You managed to choose one of the largest targets you possibly could demographically and wrote a sweeping generalization which is just stupid. I don’t have to defend anything: you have to defend writing something so stupid and you can’t because it’s just stupid. You write stupid things.
Damn, too stupid to understand words… What a sad day. Go back to first grade and learn to read before replying again.
Wow. How old are you?
I agree. I come from a protestant background and am now Orthodox. I never knew why I was so disinterested in church as a kid. I guess it seemed disingenous, trivial or arbitrary. This turned out to be true. A few years ago I acknowleged that something was missing and attended an Orthodox church. I had been researching for a while.
It is a world of difference. The problem with a lot of these denominations is that they try to “stay relevant” when Christ is always relevant. The liturgy does not put man at the center either. The entire parish faces God. Much of Western Christendom is falling victim to the self worship of the secular world. You can see it most recently with the acceptance of the gay agenda splitting the last remaining mainline protestant denominations even though it is clearly a sin.
People want boundaries and guidance. They hunger for it. The Orthodox church has changed very little in 1300 years and provides clear direction. The structure seems constricting from the outside but in reality it is freedom. Freedom from sin and to worship God in the way of the apostles.
There’s no way to make it “more relevant” because everything else is irrelevant.
You can see it most recently with the acceptance of the gay agenda splitting the last remaining mainline protestant denominations even though it is clearly a sin.
Friend, this is exactly the kind of thing Jesus called people out for. Right now, you are in the scribes and Pharisees group.
I don’t understand your point. We should love the sinner but hate the sin. We should certainly never condone it as part of church teaching and culture.
Jesus was meticulous about defining sin, and that it is primarily how you treat others (Matthew 25).
Homosexuality is not a sin and no scripture supports such an interpretation. Paul’s letters also do not support such an interpretation. Any scripture used to defend such an anti-Christ stance is a gross and deliberate mistranslation. (e.g. Leviticus 20)
What Jesus also taught is to live by example, not to judge others, and to not worry about what you perceive other’s shortcomings to be. (Matthew 7)
Also: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is not scriptural. It is a corruption of a saying from Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: “with love for mankind and hatred of sins.”
Regarding your first point – Jesus makes clear the way we should live our lives by his words and his actions. He is compassionate and, as you mentioned, demands that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us especially if we don’t want to for whatever reason. He made an example of this multiple times by conversing with schismatics, gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors etc Through his love these people repent of their sins. God loves us but demands we have faith and earnestly try to obey his commandments if we want to enter the Kingdom of God.
Also I don’t see how you are using Leviticus 20 to say homosexuality (specifically acting on same sex attraction) is not a sin. It says the exact opposite.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 also calls out homosexual acts between men as sin.
Homosexuality is not a sin and no scripture supports such an interpretation. Paul’s letters also do not support such an interpretation. Any scripture used to defend such an anti-Christ stance is a gross and deliberate mistranslation.
You’ve provided no justification while disagreeing with over 2000 years Christian teachings. Which church do you attend?
What Jesus also taught is to live by example, not to judge others, and to not worry about what you perceive other’s shortcomings to be. (Matthew 7)
Sure. I try and fail everyday to live up to the standards of Christ. Such is the life of a Christian. When I speak about Churches failing I’m not happy about it. I legitmately sympathize. When I talk about homosexuality being a sin I’m not puffing up my chest. I feel empathy for people who are either ignorant of or struggling with that lifestyle. Furthermore as a sinner I am in the same boat. My sins are different but every bit as sinful. I pray daily for the mercy of God.
Also: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is not scriptural. It is a corruption of a saying from Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: “with love for mankind and hatred of sins.”
The two phrases literally mean the same thing. It is scripturally based. Christ loves us but hates our sin. Christ died on the cross for our sins. We must accept Christ and work daily to abide by his commandments.
Leviticus 20 - you may not rape (force a sexual relationship upon) a boy of your household the way you would a woman.
The problem you are having is that you have no concept of the culture or context in which scripture sits. As Jesus would say, “you are lost because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” This has never been a mystery. This interpretation did not appear until around 1000AD as part of the Roman cult’s ongoing attempts to distance themselves from Judaism… the religion that Jesus taught and practiced.
Romans 1:26-27 is explicitly about temple prostitution. Something else that is extremely obvious to anyone with even a little historical context.
2000 years of church teaching: You mean 1000 years of pagan cult teaching? I follow Jesus and I follow scripture. I do not follow scribes and Pharisees or their unscriptural anti-Christ teachings.
Last bit: I am pointing out that this phrase is not scripture. You quoted it as if it was. This is a common problem in the modern church… it does not teach or understand scripture, its context, or its purpose. It’s little more than a political tool meant to keep peasantry in line.
The problem you are having is that you have no concept of the culture or context in which scripture sits.
🤔
This has never been a mystery. This interpretation did not appear until around 1000AD as part of the Roman cult’s ongoing attempts to distance themselves from Judaism… the religion that Jesus taught and practiced.
Again asserted without justification. Are you a gnostic? Because this is quite the theory. Do you believe in the trinity?
I do not follow scribes and Pharisees or their unscriptural anti-Christ teachings.
It doesn’t sound like you follow anything because the early church would not agree with you.
Last bit: I am pointing out that this phrase is not scripture. You quoted it as if it was. This is a common problem in the modern church… it does not teach or understand scripture, its context, or its purpose. It’s little more than a political tool meant to keep peasantry in line.
Lol… I am an Orthodox Christian. It is THE ancient church. Their canons and interpretations are locked in time from the 8th century. It is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church left to humanity at Pentecost. I do not attend a “modern” church. The church has scripture AND tradition that is passed down from the time of Christ. There is innate understanding of the culture and practices at the time of Christ and tomes of literature by Church Fathers and scholars to illustrate that point.
You make broad sweeping claims with no justification while accusing me of being a heretic. Homosexuality is a sin. It’s in the scriptures, it’s in the tradition and it’s in the history of the church. The Orthodox church has two millenia of teachings to back up their interpretations. This is the same church that produced the Christian canon that you are citing to me.
Regardless I can tell we arent going to get anywhere. You didn’t reveal which church you’re a member of which leads me to believe you are a gnostic or some other sect that claims to “know better”.