Pre modern, Modern, and Post-modern?... In its history Christianity has had to continually evolve from small minor points to the decoration of church to huge claims such as the ‘being’ of God. Christianity in its history has had to continually evolve and, perhaps as social commentators talk of the oncoming posmodern era again Christianity needs to grow up again.

In EARLY Modernity things were different. With much of the population understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ p on professing to it and yet not living it. It is little surprise that the gospel focused on fire and brimstone preaching. However in this new age with many not understanding the gospel YET alone professes to follow it. A new type of Christianity may be needed. A more tolerant type of Christianity?

One that isn’t ashamed of its past and present and much like its message it is preaching is willing to admit when it has failed and asks not only its god but his neighbour for forgiveness. A gospel that instead of focusing on small issues such as the age of the earth looks towards the life changing. The meaning and the and being of god? Prayer in classrooms replaced with the faith that god is in control. A church that instead of condemning attempts to reach the masses for nothing in return.

A church at its roots!!

Christianity started as a fellowship of men and women

It travelled to Greece and became a philosophy

To Rome and became an institution

In Europe it became a culture

And finally to America where it became an enterprise.

Perhaps its time to get back to our roots? And perhaps were all involved after all the sprit of the lord no longer dwell in temples or individuals but all of us whether we know it or not.

If you support this vision and want to know more just feel free to reply I will attempt to answer as many of your questions as possible.

Peace out!

"Christianity started as a fellowship of men and women

It travelled to Greece and became a philosophy

To Rome and became an institution

In Europe it became a culture

And finally to America where it became an enterprise."

Some fellowship among men and women... anyone who doesn't accept christianity is damned in hell. That is not fellowship among men and women, it's fellowship among christians only.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Some fellowship among men and women... anyone who doesn't accept christianity is damned in hell. That is not fellowship among men and women, it's fellowship among christians only.

Well it depends when the church was more devolved it may have been. (Modernity)

However the 'orignal' church was clearly not. Jesus’ time was spent with others. Roman's, tax men, prostitutes lepers Jesus purpose was people.

The early church in acts 2 was growing everyday how cold that be if it wasn’t meeting with others. fellowship is more than what happens just inside the '4' walls of a church, but you are right to be annoyed and I apologise on behalf of the church and Christians if they ever refused you the time of day due to differences... do you accept my apology?

You clearly cannot apologize for the behavior of any church or group of christians that I have encountered in my life, or christianity as a whole. Not that I even feel any "injustice" or wrong doing that an apology could right has occurred. Your apology itself might be interpreted as a passive-agressive act, but it certainly is manipulative...I forgive you for that, and will explain again the point at hand.

The fundamental belief that nonchristians will be damned in hell when they die is divisive and contradicts any concept of fellowship. Was this belief not present in more 'devolved' christianity? You cannot say you are the same or equal to someone and at the same time say that someone, but not yourself, is going to be damned in hell. This is the contradiction.

If you renounced the belief that accepting jesus is the only way to heaven (and thus only way to avoid hell), your talk of fellowship among men and women could be meaningful.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 06-24-2006).]

I don’t see myself as any higher than you or any others. All people regardless of creed or colour are still a human created in the image of my god to whom the creation and salvation of the world is attributed to. To judge you would be to judge god and ultimately me.

An analogy would be this “I am good at history very good I could apply for an Oxbridge university if I wanted heck lets say i am going to Oxford. Now my friend Harry isn’t as good he isn’t going the same place however I can still respect him”

(Typical modern answer)

However this is where the problems start… the kingdom of heaven in classical Jewish lore is ‘Upon us’ it is the total regeneration of the natural and super natural realm. Heaven is upon us and around us. And we are to ‘Usher in’ its presence with good works (not to say salvation is by good works). In that way

Now we know hell is separation from god… and the term Jesus used was gehhena (which was a Jewish dump) now the mentions of burning is an always in reference to the Religious. People much like me in many ways… Jesus judged the self-righteous not those of humility. I believe those who want to know will know (knock and the door will be opened) those who don’t are just making petty excuses to avoid any sense of accountability (even on a sub conciseness level). In this way those who don’t know god is because they choose not to.

(However I personally subscribe the anilationist theology in the respect of hell)

However none of this answers the question after all I could talk about loving others all I want but until I do it its worth nothing. I have to prove myself and I hope to do that over the coming months and years, if you want to talk on msn just ask…

OP, it's obvious you don't know jack about the beginning of Christianity.

Fellowship of men and women? For the first 250 years it was a martyr's church, constantly under persecution. And what about how the Orthodox Christians declared the Gnostics, Arians, and Ebionites heretics and killed them? No fellowship for the first few centuries there (unless you were an orthodox Christian, the protestant church didn't exist back then, and if they did, they would have been fighting with the orthodox church as well).

Travelled to Greece and became a philosophy?! WTF?! Philosophy of what? Where? What the fuck does this mean?

In Rome it became an institution? Not "an" institution, it was the institution. The fuckin' powerhouse, cities run by bishops, massive amounts of power granted to the pope. Same story in Europe during the Frankish empire and long after that. It was the culture, because the church had the state by the balls. And there was war, and persecution, and death for anyone who opposed the church. On from the crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to the institution of the Church of England and its persecution of "heretics", witchburnings all throughout all of this, and then persecuted puritans come to America and burn more witches and complain about how the founding fathers aren't good Christians like them.

And finally, we end with the good old American Church (TM). Nothing new. The various churches of Christianity have all been pushing people around since Rome quit feeding them to lions. They've just put away their stakes and torches for the time being.

Christianities roots are roots of violence and persecution. You really want to go back to that?

He has still ignored the point that the belief in a heaven hell system--where only christians go to heaven--directly contradicts any concept of fellowship among men and women.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

He has still ignored the point that the belief in a heaven hell system--where only christians go to heaven--directly contradicts any concept of fellowship among men and women.

I didn’t need to as I don’t feel it does…

[QUOTE]

Fellowship of men and women? For the first 250 years it was a martyr's church, constantly under persecution. And what about how the Orthodox Christians declared the Gnostics, Arians, and Ebionites heretics and killed them? No fellowship for the first few centuries there (unless you were an orthodox Christian, the protestant church didn't exist back then, and if they did, they would have been fighting with the orthodox church as well).[QUOTE/]

Well thats a straw man...

early church=jesus and is desciples to house church's

acts 2v 43-47 is a prime example

[quote]Travelled to Greece and became a philosophy?! WTF?! Philosophy of what? Where? What the fuck does this mean?[quote/]

it became more of a belif system than a pure life style happy? sorounded by doctrine this is when your orthodox problems happen...

[quote]In Rome it became an institution? Not "an" institution, it was the institution.[quote/]

no there were still others even if the church eclipsed them..your playing petty word games anyway and im not wiling to get into that

[quote]The fuckin' powerhouse, cities run by bishops, massive amounts of power granted to the pope. Same story in Europe during the Frankish empire and long after that. It was the culture, because the church had the state by the balls. And there was war, and persecution, and death for anyone who opposed the church. On from the crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to the institution of the Church of England and its persecution of "heretics", witchburnings all throughout all of this, and then persecuted puritans come to America and burn more witches and complain about how the founding fathers aren't good Christians like them.

And finally, we end with the good old American Church (TM). Nothing new. The various churches of Christianity have all been pushing people around since Rome quit feeding them to lions. They've just put away their stake and torches for the time being.[quote/]

so you basiccly agree woth me for all but the first point where we have differinginterprataions of the dates thus concludes the early church wasnt tat violent at all however later ones were...

^ First, you suck at UBB.

Second, how was my first argument a straw man?

You include the spreading of the gospel by the apostles as the "early church", and how did they spread it?

Acts 2:40 - And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Acts 2:43 - And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

They spread it through fuckin' scare tactics and promise of reward. And what of these miracles and signs? Acts 2:41 said 3000 people joined. That would've been at least 3000 people seeing these miracles. And yet the only written records of these ever occuring are in the works written by the guys that supposedly did them (mostly Paul)? Where are the witness accounts?!

Needless to say, most of the disciples were either executed or exiled by the Roman empire. Whatever church they scrounged up in the times of Paul was persecuted and fed to lions for 300 years until Constantine prayed to Jesus, had a few battle victories, and decided that Christianity worked for him.

And as far as Christianity being a "belief system" instead of a "life style"...I agree to an extent. But not with what you intended to say. It was a belief system to Greeks and Romans, the god of the Christians was just like any other god. The Romans didn't have personal, loving gods like people like today. They worked with their gods. In exchange for sacrifices and building monuments and worshipping these gods, they were blessed with good crops and victory in war. Christianity was nothing more than another tool some of these people used. Constantine himself believed in both Christianity and his older pagan gods. Why? They both "worked" for him on the battlefield and ensured good crops and success for his empire.

And yeah, the early church wouldn't have been that violent, as they were sticking up for themselves because they were looked down upon. Nero blamed them for starting the Great Fire of Rome, and Diocletian persecuted them for not bowing to his statue. After they got some power and people stopped picking on them, they went straight to picking on others.

quote:Originally posted by insert witty comment here:

I didn’t need to as I don’t feel it does…

It's not about feelings, it's about the meaning of the words you use and how you have misrepresented christianity.

If you "feel" that the belief that nonchristians will not go to heaven does not contradict fellowship, then explain...if you can.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 06-25-2006).]

elephantits

ok act 2:43 fear of what...why was there fear[and respect]of[for] the lord? quote the whole verse...