Progressive Christians

If you decide to be Roman Catholic,
their should not be the expectation The Church
will change for YOU.
YOU decided to be Roman Catholic, not The Church.

And if the Roman Catholic Church decides homosexuality is contrary to The Lord,
it is the Roman Catholic Church's Prerogative To Do So!

What part do I have incorrect.

Look at the bright side, after nearly 2,000 years The Church decreed
Moi is no longer equally culpable for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Thank YOU Church.


Moi

​

 

In the mid 20th century many men entered the seminary believing that homosexuality is a sin. A Gay man knew he could never live a heterosexual life so going into the priesthood was a way to conceal his shame. I knew several young priests who were already alcoholics due to the stress/ emptiness of celibacy. A recent report suggests that at least 30% of Catholic priests are closeted Gays. The madness of being told you are aberrant for loving someone of the same sex is unhealthy and educated Catholics demand the Church join enlightened Christians.

 

I am sad to see the decline of the Church but in America, like other advanced nations there's a huge drop in attendance. It is to the point that parents maybe get their kids baptized but rarely confirmed. Marriages and funerals are only time many "Christians" attend church.

 

I far more positively view Christians who help the less fortunate and follow the Golden Rule than I do those that attend church regularly. There is certainly plenty of crossover, but there's also plenty of 'christians' who, while they attend church regularly, behave despicably when they're away from it.

 

As a religious/philosophical worldview or ideology, 'Christianity' has a specific, historical definition, given by the Founder.

There have been many 'offshoots', or departures from this historical, orthodox Christianity, but they should be viewed as 'inspired by', or 'knockoffs', not the original.

IOW, there is 'Christianity!', and there is 'not Christianity'. There is a long, recorded history of this belief system, and it is not hard to define.

'Progressive Christianity', is a hybrid, blend, offshoot, or departure from historical Christianity. It would be, 'not Christianity', to most traditionalists.

 

Dr. King did not hide religious imagery in his efforts to overturn Jim Crow.

 

That is still the position of the Catholic Church, and the vast majority of global Christianity.

The only madness is the celibacy rule for clergy, it is unbiblical and naturally has led to negative consequences like a shortage of priests and the pedophilia/homosexual scandals. Look, as I think Augustine said if you only believe the parts of the Bible you agree with, it isn't the Bible you believe in but yourself.

 

Exactly, and IMHO these are the ones Jesus spoke of when He said He will say on Judgement Day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." He said His true disciples weren't just those who said they were, but those who followed His commandments. Homosexualilty wasn't an issue for His Jewish audience, so of course He didn't speak of it. It was for Paul's gentile audience, so he did address it to them. Homosexuality was about as accepted in ancient pagan society as it is in modern pagan Western society. Jesus would have said to a repentant active homosexual the same thing He said to the woman caught in adultery, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."

 

You're right - he didn't. And I'm not supporting his letter.

 

Look, I am not advocating anyone run on the platform of a particular religion, I think that campaign would be doomed but it would not violate the Constitution, which only prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion, as in the UK, and as several states had up until the 1820s.

 

It is amusing when Christians defend that their particular belief of God is "true" Christianity. Catholics used to think that only Catholics will be in heaven. 18th century Lutherans in Europe beheaded Baptists for not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in holy communion. Several Christian denominations do not believe in the Trinity.

 

I don't know many that say that. If they can say the creeds I'm not going to argue with them. I agree with the late Billy Graham, who said God's people are in many denominations. The vast majority of Christians agree on the essentials of the faith, as expressed in the creeds for instance.

They they aren't Christian.

 

Exactly. The significance of accepting at least one of the ecumenical creeds includes much of Christianity. I followed the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue

"FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION" http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html
Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue
https://www.lutheranworld.org/content/lutheran-roman-catholic-dialogue

The conclusion was that Lutherans should be a "rite" [ie. Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite] within the Catholic church and even accept the guidance of the pope. But Lutherans ordain women and gays so Pope Francis put reunion on hold.

 

The possibility that women could be capable of religious ministry is "progressive"??

Holy Cow!

 

Not amusing.. but essential. Deadly essential.

Departures, or heresies from orthodox Christianity have been ongoing since the Founder first spoke. There IS.. a specific, exact definition of 'Christianity', that is not dependent on feeling, or the fickle whims of man.

There are many departures.. heresies.. from historical, biblical Christianity. They would be 'not Christianity'. True, historical, biblical Christianity has existed and continued in an unbroken line since the Founder started it. The exact, accurate definition is not hard to clarify, nor is it hard to obscure. It depends on the motives. Are you presenting and defending historical, biblical Christianity, or trying to obscure, muddy, or destroy the message that Jesus brought?

 

Catholic doctrine : papal infallibility/ Mary is the "Mother of God", was born without sin/ bodily assumed into heaven/ has made appearances [Guadalupe/ Lourdes/ Fatima].

Yet other Christians reject those teachings. Who are historic Christians?

 

I'm with CS Lewis, who said he could never become a Catholic because there were too many new doctrines.

 

SOME Lutherans, the Missouri and Wisconsin Synod, among others, do not.

 

Yes, there are Lutherans and Episcopalians/ Anglicans who disagree. This past week Methodists rejected same-sex marriage. Pope Francis raised the question "who am I to judge?"

"True Christianity" is a matter of opinion. Mormons are quite different from Baptists for example.

 

The vast majority of the 70,000,000 Anglican Communion does not support gay marriage.

Isn't that his job? At the same time he freely judges people based on political differences he disagrees with. He is the Joe Biden of religion.

 

They all state claims of representing true Christian orthodoxy, obviously.

And, being "older" doesn't mean being more "true".

 

One could argue that the Church of Rome manifests authentic Christianity historically yet some of the most hideous abuses of innocent human beings have occurred in that branch of the Christian faith. Faith is empty/ a farce without human compassion. Some Christians are identified as "hate groups" in such an outrageous betrayal of the Gospel.

 

Well, frankly I don't know how a Christian could choose to be a Republican, given the clear message of the New Testament. Jesus bent over backwards to help those who needed help, regardless of their minority status, their social situation, etc. Over and over he modeled his love - a clear message to us all. Dems have plenty of problems, but at least they aren't working so hard against helping those who need help and treating each other as equals as humans.

But, each individual has to figure out what their religion means.

 

Remnants of the inquisition

 

There is history of orthodoxy, and basic tenets of Christianity that originated from the Founder. The biblical texts, and the early church fathers (and succeeding generations) preserved that orthodoxy, and delivered the 'faith' as it began. Departures and offshoots have been continual, but it has not changed the core orthodoxies of the original.

I had a thread on this, that went on for some time:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/christianity-a-summary.530362/