Sunday, June 29, 2008

How liberals like Obama are trying to hijack Christianity Part 3

6-29-2008

(CNSNews.com) - In an Apr. 10 interview with The Advocate magazine, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said "homophobic" messages are coming from the pulpits of black churches because "most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture." In the same interview, Obama praised the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor and long-time spiritual adviser, for being on the right side of the homosexual debate.

Barack Obama has made the entire case of my argument about how liberalism is infecting Christianity. Like I said in part one, blacks for the most part are very conservative aka traditional when it comes to being against abortion and homosexuality, and once again Barack Obama validated what I said. Obama stated that the problem in his views is that blacks are scripture “traditionalist”. Obama proved as a liberal he doesn’t like biblical scripture when it conflicts or opposes with what he supports as a liberal. In this case that would be homosexuality.

"There's plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate, a homosexual publication, said to Obama, during the interview.”

I guess Mr. Eleveld feels that some how blacks are suppose to showmore sympathy to the “homosexual cause” then whites? Why would that be? Homosexual organizations are trying to use the terminology of “civil rights” as a symbolic connection to what blacks endured during the civil rights movement of the sixties. There is no comparison not now nor ever in that regards. Obama went on to state

"And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed," "And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community, those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."

Like I said before last week, Barack Obama is dangerous! He has a problem that black ministers are leading their congregations in the proper context of scripture? Is this guy for real? These black ministers are calling it like it is. It's called morality, thats something Obama has no idea what it means. It’s not a matter of “homophobic attitudes”, it’s teaching the fact that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior and more importantly a SIN!! People like Obama want black traditionalist ministers to “VALIDATE SINFUL BEHAVIOR AS BEING ACCEPTABLE AND NORMAL”! If Obama had attended a real Christian church instead of the Trinity cult for 20 years, he would have known what passes for sinful behavior and what is moral. It doesn’t surprise me that he gave credit to his “former” pastor Jeremiah Wright for being “very good on gay and lesbian issues”. The Christian Church as a whole is being bastardized by people like Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, Joseph Lowery, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Phleger and many other serpents on the left trying to pass off their spew as gods word. Barack Obama is not a Christian, and many blacks and others who adhere to the teachings that come from these twisted people are merely “Christians in name ONLY”. Obama didn't join Trinity United, because he found gof. He joined Trinity, because he liked the "black value system" that it promoted. The first commandment states "I am a jealous god, and there will be no other god before me". It was interesting listening to Obama try and attack Dr. Dobson on the issue of religion. Well Dr. Dobson spells out in greater detail how Obama is anything BUT a man of god.

46 Comments:

Blogger p. anthony allen said...

RB states; "If Obama had attended a real Christian church instead of the Trinity cult for 20 years, he would have known what passes for sinful behavior and what is moral."

Define a "real Christian" church...
Better still define "real religion" or "real faith." Is there a universal definition? How many religious beliefs are there in the modern world? Am I and everyone else to believe that, only what "YOU" believe, is "real Christianity?"

This country has, (as Thomas Jefferson put it) "a wall of separation" between church and state as the basis for the first amendment of the constitution.

Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist;

"A legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Not only does this assert that no "religion" be officially sanctioned by the state, but that one is free to practice any religion that he, or she chooses.

RB says;"People go to church to worship god not race. In the case of so called churches like Trinity, people gathered to worship race and then god if time permits it."

Actually people go to churches to worship whatever they want. That's the American way!

As far as race and religion, race, as you know, is a "social" construct in America. Religion has been around for thousands of years. It has only been within my lifetime that "a majority" of so-called "Christians" began to worship in the same buildings as blacks.

That brings me to the idea, and the present, and the reasoned existence of the "Black Church". The Black Church was founded in recourse to segregation in the then so-called "Christian Church", as well as segregation in society.

Forming in the mid 1800s, the African Methodist Episcopal Church gave newly freed slaves refuge in many of the northern cities. It was the likes of men such as
Richard Allen, Daniel Payne and Denmark Vesey that helped shape the A.M.E. church. Much of spiritual culture, tradition and style formed at that time, can still been found in most Black Churches to this day.

Simply put, the Black Church is an institution. Tyrone, some like yourself say that the Black Church needs to change it's direction and message. Some say the time has come for all people of faith to join in one common practice to serve God. The preeminent question is;

"Who should join with who"? Who should give up the way they have praised God, or give up their institutions spiritual teachings, at the behest of an other's beliefs?

The question here is, "who's right"? Who should "you" believe? From preachers who believe Christianity is a "Great Whore", to preachers who believe "AIDS was invented by the government", to "the U.S. being founded to destroy another religion", to "God punishing homosexuals with a hurricane" to.... God knows what else!!!

In this country, Black Christians have never systematically excluded Whites from attending their churches. Yet it has only been 40 years or so, since "some White" churches allowed blacks to sit in the pews, let alone "join" their church.

Therefore are we to believe that Christianity was "hijacked" for all those years by whites? Or was it "hijacked" by blacks who took it upon themselves (and at the behest of some white spiritual leaders) to form their own church? Did God really want the races to praise him in separate churches? Is it in the interest of God for blacks to join with whites in praising God, or whites to join with blacks?

The fact is there would be no "Black Church" in America if it were not for the racist cultural history of this society. This society created the Black Church.
Thus Black spiritual leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, Joseph Lowery, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton are merely a reflection of what this society created. It seems to me that "forgiving" them would be more in line with Christian values, than chastising, or branding them as a demagogues and racist.

However, there is one way to make America a bastion of peace and non-racial divide. It can all be done through the church and it's spiritual leaders.

Since Blacks are the minority, (about 12% of the total population) White spiritual leaders could encourage their congregations to reach out to blacks and their communities to join their churches.

These white pastors should encourage their men and women to intermingle with blacks in spiritual education, economic cooperation, and socialization by encouraging whites and blacks to date and marry. Imagine Rev. Dobson inviting Jesse Jackson's congregation to join together with his congregation to equally share the pulpit in a common message of unity. Imagine Rev. Dobson encouraging his followers to embrace Blacks socially, and seeing blacks and whites dating and marrying one another on a unprecedented scale, and Rev. Jackson doing the same. Imagine the entire black population of this country living and socializing side-by-side in churches, schools, neighborhoods, the work place, the home, with whites. Realistically it would be easier for whites to begin this process being that they have the advantage of larger numbers. It would only take half of the white congregations to totally absorb every Black Church in this country. From there a process of total assimilation could begin. Within one or two generations, Voila! no more Black Church! (or is it?)

11:18 AM  
Blogger Pamela said...

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080627/black-pro-life-advocates-rally-in-dc.htm

Was there much reporting on local TV about this? I read on another blog that the Washington Post and Washington Times wrote something about it. I find it interesting that they are presenting abortion as a civil rights issue. No surprise about this since Planned Parenthood's roots were to exterminate blacks from the face of the earth. One of the main people is Dr. Martin Luther King's niece. She has been out there for a couple of years that I'm aware of dealing with this issue.

This blog below mainly deals with how religion is reported and if they are really reporting religion or not. This is where I read that the Post and the Times wrote about this.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3658

There were dozens of blacks, a good number of them ministers, that attended this rally. I would love to see how Senator Obama would deal with this. I'm sure he is aware of it since the protests took place at both party headquarters.

8:00 PM  
Anonymous Chilerkle said...

Barack Obama is no Christian!
He is a pied piper for Racial Identity Politics!
It makes me laugh how he claims to be a uniter.

What a fork tongued scumbag!
He obviously hold christians in contempt and I'd be a fool to overlook Obama's disdain for Christianity!

I'm very saddened that there are some people who are old enough to know better that will vote for this man!

5:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing that sickens me about the whole Obama scam is that their are actually some incredibly poorly taught 'christians' , white and black, that are goint to vote for this dangerously anti christ man..

The Biblical illiteracy is astounding in North America...that is the reason so many so called Church people that blindly vote for the left wing radical candidatie that America has every put forth!!

I expect the world not to know any better...but we in the Body are to be the discerning ones!!

8:01 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen: Define a "real Christian" church...
Better still define "real religion" or "real faith." Is there a universal definition? How many religious beliefs are there in the modern world? Am I and everyone else to believe that, only what "YOU" believe, is "real Christianity?"



Me: Try looking at the historic definitions for a change, starting with the apostles creed, the Athanasian creed, and the Nicene creed, for starters.

And also look up the word antinominian, a POV that has always been rejected historically by Christians, but in this case accepted by Obama and his church.

9:34 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Obama's objections are to God's law in both OT and NT that tells us what is sinful and what is not.

Since he belongs to a denom that claims to be Protestant, let me quote the Protestant confessions that tell us what Protestants historically believe (and I belong to a conservative Lutheran denom btw):

Lutheran Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/thirduse.html

7] However, believers are not renewed in this life perfectly or completely, completive vel consummative [as the ancients say]; for although their sin is covered by the perfect obedience of Christ, so that it is not imputed to believers for condemnation, and also the mortification of the old Adam and the renewal in the spirit of their mind is begun through the Holy Ghost, nevertheless the old Adam clings to them still in their nature and all its internal and external powers. 8] Of this the apostle has written Rom. 7, 18ff.: I know that in me [that is, in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing. And again: For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do; Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin. Likewise, Gal. 5, 17: The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

9] Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119, 71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes. And again, 1 Cor. 9, 27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. And again, Heb. 12, 8: But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons; as Dr. Luther has fully explained this at greater length in the Summer Part of the Church Postil, on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.

10] But we must also explain distinctively what the Gospel does, produces, and works towards the new obedience of believers, and what is the office of the Law in this matter, as regards the good works of believers.

11] For the Law says indeed that it is God's will and command that we should walk in a new life, but it does not give the power and ability to begin and do it; but the Holy Ghost, who is given and received, not through the Law, but through the preaching of the Gospel, Gal. 3, 14, renews the heart. 12] Thereafter the Holy Ghost employs the Law so as to teach the regenerate from it, and to point out and show them in the Ten Commandments what is the [good and] acceptable will of God, Rom. 12, 2, in what good works God hath before ordained that they should walk, Eph. 2, 10. He exhorts them thereto, and when they are idle, negligent, and rebellious in this matter because of the flesh, He reproves them on that account through the Law, so that He carries on both offices together: He slays and makes alive; He leads into hell and brings up again. For His office is not only to comfort, but also to reprove, as it is written: When the Holy Ghost is come, He will reprove the world (which includes also the old Adam) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. 13] But sin is everything that is contrary to God's Law. 14] And St. Paul says: All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, etc., and to reprove is the peculiar office of the Law. Therefore, as often as believers stumble, they are reproved by the Holy Spirit from the Law, and by the same Spirit are raised up and comforted again with the preaching of the Holy Gospel.


Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God
I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]

9:46 AM  
Blogger Carlotta said...

P. Anthony, a "real Christian Church" does not need to invent values systems based upon the color of one's skin. A Black value system such as espoused by Trinity, is racist and an affront to Christianity. White values systems, Black, Philipino, Indian and what have you denies that values can be centered upon Christ for the building up of individuals and communities.

There are black churches in existence that are not cultic like Trinity. Black churches where Jesus Christ and the bible are more than enough.

Being black doesn't mean having to invent things because we don't trust the bible's power to accomplish change within a person. That's the gripe about Trinity and churches like it.

Most of the early black churches didn't create a separate liberation theology. They wanted the freedom to preach Christ with the word of God. White churches as we know didn't allow blacks and thus the creation of the black church.

Real faith? As a Christian, I believe what the bible teaches when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Jesus is real and not only biblical evidence pointing to His existence, but other extra biblical sources as well. So if He existed, then we better pay attention to what He says in God's word.

That's real truth, real faith and the real church are those who believe in Him!

This is a good series by conservative brother because it shows Obama with hints that he may not be a "real Christian." He was a cult follower and its truly scary that he sat in this "cult" for 20 years studying the aberrant teachings of Rev. Wright. And now he wants to be president? We need all the information about Obama's church history as well as his political and life history. Those things are important if we are going to choose someone to lead our nation.

It is clear to me and others that Obama does not qualify!

11:52 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

“Define a "real Christian" church...
Better still define "real religion" or "real faith." Is there a universal definition?”
(PAA)
<
<
America’s LAWS certainly recognize the difference between cults and religions, PAA. It’s done all the time and the government has taken legal action against “reverends” from “unrecognized” religions taking tax exempt status, while cults from Jim Jones’ to Charles Manson’s, to Marshall Applewhite’s have been targeted and broken up.

The First Amendment really ONLY recognizes the “major (established) religions” – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism. The courts have clearly sided with the government in giving law enforcement wide latitude in discerning cults from religions. Various offshoots from Mormonism to a number of Liberation theology cults masquerading as Christianity have been able to avoid prosecution, but with McCain-Feingold, there are in existence even more strictures AGAINST Church-based political action than ever before...and rightly so. That’s one of the few areas of McCain-Feingold that wasn’t a complete abortion.

There are a large number of “mail order reverends” who’ve done time in prison for tax evasion and no shortage of cults that have called themselves religions that have been targeted for legal action.
<
<
“Simply put, the Black Church is an institution. Tyrone, some like yourself say that the Black Church needs to change it's direction and message.” (PAA)
<
<
I’ve never read anything from Tyrone that insinuated that the traditional message of the traditional black Christian Churches be changed. His problem seems to be with the few non-traditional black churches.

Seems sensible, given that Christian theologians are virtually unanimous in asserting that Liberation Theology, which posits that Jesus Christ was a Marxist, is (1) NOT compatible with traditional Christian teachings and principles and (2) primarily a political NOT a religious movement.
<
<
“The fact is there would be no "Black Church" in America if it were not for the racist cultural history of this society. This society created the Black Church.” (PAA)
<
<
Racism? You speak of that as if it were unacceptable to most humans, today, or that “racism” is considered wrong or immoral by the majority of people on earth! In America, England and most of northern Europe? Sure, probably, but virtually NOWHERE else on this globe!

In fact, even today, “racism” is the way of the world.

It’s easy for Americans to forget that given the relatively long history of anti-racism that has existed here for centuries and which came to political prominence in the wake of WW II.

In Asia, where most of those cultures are homogenous, racial animus is the rule rather than the exception. Japanese people revile blacks and aren’t all that keen on whites either, that’s pretty much the pattern throughout that region.

The Arabs, though Caucasian, they are NOT European, and STILL they sided with Hitler’s Third Reich against the Americans and British in WW II. Arab leaders during WW II sought help from the Germans in dealing with their own “Jewish problem.”

Even in sub-Saharan Africa, racism is the rule rather than the exception. Idi Amin collapsed Uganda’s economy by pogromming the Indians and Asians out of that country. Robert Mugabe’s racist policies have turned Zimbabwe, once “the breadbasket of Africa,” into a nation that cannot even feed itself!

This notion that the West, specifically England and America have been innately racist nations amidst a non-racial world, or even that Europe and America initiated and supported racism globally is pure bullshit, propogated mainly by people who simply don’t know much about the rest of the world.

In FACT, England was the first nation on earth to end chattel slavery (1824) and America followed within a generation (1863). To date, chattel slavery still exists throughout much of Asia, the Arab world and, of course, in sub-Saharan Africa.

To be honest, looking at humans globally, the Anglo-Americans and their descendants (those born in Europe and the U.S.) are a diamond in a veritable cesspool of humanity.

That’s not to say that the rest of the world is terrible or irretrievable, but to those who think Europe and America are bad (and we do have our faults)...the rest of the world’s population is 150 to 200 years behind where we are today, certainly in terms of ethnic hostilities.

1:40 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen"Define a "real Christian" church..."

A church that exists for public worship of Christ. Notice I didn't meantion race.

P Allen "Better still define "real religion" or "real faith." Is there a universal definition?

Come on Allen, it pretty self explanatory. When a religion is practiced traditionally, its considered pure. When other things are added to change the religion, it then becomes tainted, polluted, or altered.

P Allen"How many religious beliefs are there in the modern world? Am I and everyone else to believe that, only what "YOU" believe, is "real Christianity?"

According to the Bible Allen not me. You are under the assumption that I am passing judgement on Obama based on what I think. Obama's own beliefs aren't in synch with the religion he claims to practice. It's simple as that Allen.

P Allen"A legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

Oh please Allen, stop trying to revise history. It doesn't work with me. I know the constiution and I know all about the first amendment. The provision is very simple. Freedom of relgion not freedom from religion. It simply states that the government will not create a state run religion like catholism was under King George. You liberals are so bad understanding the constitution, do you want me to also explain the second amendment to you too allen? I can lol.

P Allen "That brings me to the idea, and the present, and the reasoned existence of the "Black Church". The Black Church was founded in recourse to segregation in the then so-called "Christian Church", as well as segregation in society."

To a point you are correct. I'm not ignoring the fact that there were whites during the time of slavery that owned slaves that called themselves Christians. Obviously they weren't. During the era of Jim Crow, the same applied, however no church regardless of the skin color of the congregation should take on a "social idenity" of its own. The church is suppose to be "gods house" first and foremost. That fact seemed to have been forgotten in regards to churches like Trinity. Case in point. In their race value system, it talks about a commitement to Africa. As a Christian, my commitement is to Jesus Christ first. As a Christian, my life doesn't revolve around race as it should be.

P Allen"Since Blacks are the minority, (about 12% of the total population) White spiritual leaders could encourage their congregations to reach out to blacks and their communities to join their churches"

Why should white spiritual leaders reach out to anyone based soley on "race" Allen? Spirtual leaders regardless of race should rearch to Christians of all races and non believers as well. Thats the difference between you and me as just stated. To you it breaks down everytime Allen with race, with me its about the person, morality, and spirtuatlity. My church is multiracial allen, and my pastor didn't have to go out and find members based on race. We worship together NOT because we have different skin colors but because we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Can you undertand that?

12:01 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"It simply states that the government will not create a state run religion like catholism was under King George."


Your point is correct, but a small correction...the church of England under George III was Anglican, not Roman Catholicism.

12:16 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

pamela"Was there much reporting on local TV about this? I read on another blog that the Washington Post and Washington Times wrote something about it. I find it interesting that they are presenting abortion as a civil rights issue"

Of course not pamela, it doesn't suit their agenda, oops I meant they don't think its newsworthy. The term "civil rights" has been manipulated beyond belief. Illegal Aliens and their groups are using the phrase "Civil Rights". Homosexuals are using ther phrase "Civil Rights", so I guess it was only a matter of time another liberal group would latch on to those two words pamela

Pamela "There were dozens of blacks, a good number of them ministers, that attended this rally. I would love to see how Senator Obama would deal with this. I'm sure he is aware of it since the protests took place at both party headquarters."

Good luck in ever seeing the media reporting that Pamela lol. For them to report on that rally and see black pastors would send the message that Obama doesn't speak for all the blacks in our country and actually some are against him.

12:16 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

chilerkle"Barack Obama is no Christian!He is a pied piper for Racial Identity Politics!
It makes me laugh how he claims to be a uniter"

Obama has turned out to be the mosst divisive presidental candidate in American history. George Wallace might be second chilerkle. When I listen to him speak, I don't feel "united". Actually I feel sick on my stomach when listening to him.

chilerkle"What a fork tongued scumbag!He obviously hold christians in contempt and I'd be a fool to overlook Obama's disdain for Christianity!"

I was laughing today when Obama was trying to pander to Evangelical Christains chilerkle. He must really think he can pull the wool over their eyes. It's not going to work. His speech wasn't about how his personal values are compatibe with Evangelicals. Obama proved me right again. He couldn't be homest to them about himself.

chilerkle"I'm very saddened that there are some people who are old enough to know better that will vote for this man!"

chilerkle, when I was growing up my mother told me something that I know is so true. "Not everybody who goes to church every sunday is a Christian" She was so right!!Some go to church to worship, and others go to be seen.

12:29 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

anon"One thing that sickens me about the whole Obama scam is that their are actually some incredibly poorly taught 'christians' , white and black, that are goint to vote for this dangerously anti christ man..
"

couldn't have said it better myself. Your right. Weak Christians normally have inept, morally bankrupt, pastors as leaders.Self serving leaders in the church are the real problem. Like the old saying goes, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.The new pastor of Trinity prached a sermon that is on youtube about Jesus Christ loving "thugs". He also referred to the discples as "thugs". I just sake my head and sigh.

12:38 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"The new pastor of Trinity prached a sermon that is on youtube about Jesus Christ loving "thugs". He also referred to the discples as "thugs". I just sake my head and sigh."


At least he got the part about Jesus loving thugs right. Jesus loves everyone. But that does not mean people will love Him back. And it does not mean Jesus wants those who are thugs to remain thugs.

And yes, I share the sigh with you at the claim of the disciples being thugs.

Well, there was Saul of Tarsus who was an anti-Christian thug literally until Jesus knocked him off his horse, and he became Paul, and the rest is history.

1:20 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

The question was asked to define a "real Christian" church...

Let me be honest here, religion, particularly Christianity, is not my strong suit. Frankly, when I read through the King James Bible at times I come up with interpretations that differ from what some others might take from the same verses and/or scripture. Thus, I'm not going to attempt to debate scripture, religious doctrine, dogma nor veneration.

I asked the question in hopes of getting a better understanding of what Tyrone (or anyone else for that matter) would consider to be a "real Christian." I used his term (real Christian) as it was expressed in his essay. Yet my objective here is to determine what constitutes a "real Christian church"?

I also asked, "how many religious beliefs (faiths, creeds, ect..) are there in the modern world?" Within each one of these thousands of religious beliefs is a measure of "reality" or truth. Yet, that truth and reality is based "SOLELY" on "FAITH".

Example:
As it has been said here many times before, you are who, what and where you are as an "accident of birth."

The government of Saudi Arabia says that 100% of it's population is Muslim. If Tyrone was born of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia is it certain that Tyrone would be a Muslim.

Furthermore, if an American were to travel to Saudi Arabia and randomly pick any Saudi citizen off the street, it is certain that he or she would tell you that Islam is the only "real" religion.

It all boils down to this, your "personal beliefs" and the certainty with which you hold them is an unreliable measure of truth, and what you believe to be "real Christianity." Religious beliefs are largely determined by "YOUR" culture and the faith of one's parents.

Tran says;"Try looking at the historic definitions for a change, starting with the apostles creed, the Athanasian creed, and the Nicene creed, for starters."

Well hello again there Tran. Haven't had the pleasure of speaking with you for a while. It's nice to here from you and I hope all's well...

On the other hand, as I said I'm not going to debate doctrine or dogma. I'm not a Christian, yet I don't believe it to be fair that anyone should question "HOW" someone else in this country worships their God. Unfortunately, you did not answer the question (define real Christianity)...

carlotta says;"a "real Christian Church" does not need to invent values systems based upon the color of one's skin. A Black value system such as espoused by Trinity, is racist and an affront to Christianity."

To my knowlege race(black, white, brown)is not mentioned in the bible. The bible refers mostly to culture (Israelite, Cainite), other than race. Back in college, I remember a Christian theologian/scholar stating that the Revelation of Paul was not included in the bible. There was also further debate as to whether or not Paul's own opinions and commands were truly revelations from God. Would that idea also exclude or include the make up of a "real Christian church"? Again, Christianity is not my area of expertise, so perhaps one of you can clarify.

So the question still remains, what is real a Christian church?

For something to be "real" it must have some kind of identity.

Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, Baptists, African Methodist Episcopal, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists say that they all are Christians. Of these faith groups, which have identical teachings and practices?

carlotta says;"That's real truth, real faith and the real church are those who believe in Him!"

Thats more in line of the type of answer I was looking for. It is my opinion that people can worship Christianity in any way they choose, provided the Father (God) and the son (Jesus) are who they pray to, worship and look to, to save their souls!

RB says;"A church that exists for public worship of Christ. Notice I didn't meantion race."

The first part I agree with. In the latter, you didn't mention words abortion and euthanasia which are not mentioned in the bible either!

It just so happen's that Trinity United Church mentions and worships Christ every day. So according to "YOUR" definition Obama's former church is a "real Christian Church"!!!!!

3:07 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"The first part I agree with. In the latter, you didn't mention words abortion and euthanasia which are not mentioned in the bible either!"


Let's get real here- murder is mentioned in the Bible.

What's next? Use the argument genoicide against blacks and jews is not mentioned in the Bible, too?

Murder is murder, period.

As to you trying to use CB's words to argue by his logic, he says Obama's church is Christian, let me spell out for you.

Christianity defines true worship as having Christ as Lord. That means submission to His word as absolute truth, something liberals reject.

Liberals reject God's law outright.

True worship does not reject God's law outright. There may be differences among Christians on which of God's law is applicable today. But none use that as excuse to say God does not hate sin, be it abortion, homosexuality, etc.

You are right you don't understand Christianity and how we define terms like worship.

And as to you saying I failed the question, no, I did not fail.

You just don't like the answer.

The answer stands- read the creeds. They laid out what historic Christianity always believe, be it Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestant Reformers.

1:50 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Back in college, I remember a Christian theologian/scholar stating that the Revelation of Paul was not included in the bible."

Revelation was by John, not Paul.

And a big difference between debate to include that book and actually not including the book.

The book was considered part of canon by early church in some local councils (though none of the 7 ecumenical councils actually gave the list of books in the Bible). And included as part of translations written by Reformers and their heirs (see KJV, for example).

9:44 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"Let's get real here- murder is mentioned in the Bible"

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass


Sound like murder to me!

Tran says;"Christianity defines true worship as having Christ as Lord. That means submission to His word as absolute truth, something liberals reject."

No living human being solely owns the truth. If you believe "liberals" reject truth, thats fine. It's just your opinion. But when you place your faith as a measure of truth for those other than yourself, you become no different than those who ran airplanes into the World Trade Center.

More Tran;"Liberals reject God's law outright"

Where is that stated in the "Liberal" platform? Pete Stark does not speak for the liberal platform no more than David Duke speaks for the conservative platform. (if that's what you're insinuating)

Tran;"And as to you saying I failed the question, no, I did not fail.

You just don't like the answer.

The answer stands- read the creeds."


You did not answer the question. A lawyer once told me, when you're in a debate, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. "The answer stands- read the creeds", is not an answer when asked a direct question.

As I previously said, I could read the creeds and then debate that your interpretation is "WRONG". Moreover, I could debate your beliefs entirely! But I'm not the type, nor am I that small minded to question what your faith holds as tenets or doctrine.

3:50 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"But when you place your faith as a measure of truth for those other than yourself, you become no different than those who ran airplanes into the World Trade Center."

LOL!

And are you absolutely your statement there is the truth?

6:28 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"As I previously said, I could read the creeds and then debate that your interpretation is "WRONG". Moreover, I could debate your beliefs entirely! But I'm not the type, nor am I that small minded to question what your faith holds as tenets or doctrine."


But small minded enough to equate the faiths millions of Christians have with the terrorists and suicide bombers like the ones of 9/11.

6:29 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Sound like murder to me!"

Sounds like you want to use what God commands as judgment on another nation as "proof" God wants murder to occur, but that does not change this fact: your argument that the Bible does not forbid abortion and so on is indefensible. The Bible also defines those who are the unborn as fully humans (see Psalm 58:3, Psalm 139). The Bible also defines murder in a specific sense, where people just don't have liberty to take law into our hands to kill another human being.

Sounds like you are using the Bible rather insincerely to try to tell Christians what they ought to believe or not believe according to the Bible, when you yourself reject its message entirely.

Sounds like you are avoiding the actual point altogether: that murder is still forbidden as one of ten commandments. At best you can charge God with hypocrisy there with the passage you cited, but don't pull the nonsense on us that abortion is not condemned in the Bible when it is considered a form of murder.

7:07 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"Revelation was by John, not Paul."

Really?

11:53 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"You did not answer the question. A lawyer once told me, when you're in a debate, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. "The answer stands- read the creeds", is not an answer when asked a direct question."

And you asked the question you don't know the answer to.

And when given the answer you presumed to know that is not the answer when you don't know at all. You admit to not understanding Christianity yet claiming to understand it more than Christians do? HA!

Creedal Christianity is what traditional Christianity is. Your problem is with history, not me there.

"As I previously said, I could read the creeds and then debate that your interpretation is "WRONG". Moreover, I could debate your beliefs entirely!"

As if you know what the creeds say and as if you know what my beliefs are.

The fact you equate my beliefs with terrorist mentality is laughable and wholly ignorant.

9:17 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

P. Anthony states;"But when you place your faith as a measure of truth for those other than yourself, you become no different than those who ran airplanes into the World Trade Center."

Tran responds; "LOL!

And are you absolutely your statement there is the truth?"


Yes, I'm positive. It's called self-righteousness. Your faith and personal beliefs and the certainty with which you hold them is an unreliable measure of truth.

Tran;"But small minded enough to equate the faiths millions of Christians have with the terrorists and suicide bombers like the ones of 9/11."

No, not with millions of Christians, just one......YOU!

Tran;"Sounds like you want to use what God commands as judgment on another nation as "proof" God wants murder to occur"

No, wrong again. In a civilized society, who would view killing an entire town or city of men, women, children, babies and animals as "Gods will"? Pol Pot? Omar al-Bashir? Robert Mugabe? Saddam Hussein? Thuyen Tran? (lol)

Tran;"And you asked the question you don't know the answer to."

Wrong again. The answer is what ever your faith, is your truth. If a person says he's Christian that means he believes in Jesus Christ the son, and God as the father. Jew's have their beliefs, Buddhist have theirs, Muslims have theirs, and so on...

Tran;"As if you know what the creeds say and as if you know what my beliefs are.

No I don't know the creeds...I told you that from the outset. As to your beliefs, I only know, and can respond to, what you tell me...

8:44 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Yeah, really.

You are not referring with the article the book of Revelation that we have in mind in the Bible.

The book of Revelation in the Bible was written by John according to that same website you argue from.

Here is the article on the book that is in the Bible that is called Revelation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

Apocalypse
Apocalypse, from the verb apokalypto, to reveal, is the name given to the last book in the Bible. It is also called the Book of Revelation.

Although a Christian work, the Apocalypse belongs to a class of literature dealing with eschatological subjects and much in vogue among the Jews of the first century before, and after, Christ.

Authenticity
The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. "John to the seven churches which are in Asia" (Ap., i, 4). And again, "I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation . . . was in the island which called Patmos, for the word of God" (i, 9).

The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from tradition we know that the Seer of the Apocalypse was John the Apostle the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle.

In Asia, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, acknowledged the Revelation of John and wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 26). In Gaul, Irenaeus firmly believes in its Divine and Apostolic authority (Adversus Haer., V, 30). In Africa, Tertullian frequently quotes Revelation without apparent misgivings as to its authenticity (C. Marcion, III, 14, 25). In Italy, Bishop Hippolytus assigns it to the Apostle St. John, and the Muratorian Fragment (a document about the beginning of the third century) enumerates it along with the other canonical writings, adding, it is true, apocryphal Apocalypse of St. Peter, but with the clause, quam quidam ex nostris in ecclesia legi nolunt. The Vetus Itala, moreover, the standard Latin version in Italy and Africa during the third century, contained the Apocalypse. In Egypt, Clement and Origen believed without hesitation in its Joannine authorship. They were both scholars and men of critical judgment. Their opinion is all the more valuable as they had no sympathy with the millennial teaching of the book. They contented themselves with an allegorical interpretation of certain passages but never ventured to impugn its authority.

Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, xviii, 8), as well as from his dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Another witness of about the same time is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a place not far from Ephesus. If he himself had not been a hearer of St. John, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39). His evidence however is but indirect. Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias admitted its inspired character. From the Apocalypse undoubtedly Papias derived his ideas of the millennium, on which account Eusebius decries his authority, declaring him to have been a man of limited understanding. The apostolic writings which are extant furnish no evidence for the authenticity of the book.

7:36 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

People who murder people who perform abortions in the name of god aren't true christians. They are no better then the person who actually carries out te abortions in the first place. Is a mass murderer who claims to be a Christian really a Christian? I would probably say no. It's one thing to believe in Jesus Christ, but its another thing how you conduct yourself according to the teachings of Christ. Liberals use the statement that Jesus was about non violence, they use that remark in regards to the war in iraq. In the bible, it speaks of Jesus using violence to throw the money changers out of the temple. Would Jesus approve of war? That's an interesting question. I seriously doubt that Jesus would approve of abortion and homosexuality.

4:45 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen: Wrong again. The answer is what ever your faith, is your truth. If a person says he's Christian that means he believes in Jesus Christ the son, and God as the father. Jew's have their beliefs, Buddhist have theirs, Muslims have theirs, and so on...

Me: Your response in saying I am "wrong again" is weak (again).

You asked the question originally how does one define a real Christian church.

I pointed out the creeds, which you summarily dismiss without knowing what they actually say (with statement I did not answer your question which is silly since you would not know if I did or did not if you don't even know what the creeds say).

Care to read what they say?

The creeds do say believe in God the Father and His only begotten Son, so you got one part right.

But the fact you dismiss the creeds there without knowing what they say and then go on to express part of what the creeds believe make your dismissal that much more embarrassing on your part.

The creeds expressed the totality of what real Christianity is. Read them before you dismiss.



Allen: No I don't know the creeds...I told you that from the outset. As to your beliefs, I only know, and can respond to, what you tell me...

Me: Yet you act all high and mighty about telling Christians what Christianity is and so on. And then when called out on that, claim you don't need to nor care what the classical definition of what historic Christian beliefs are.

Precisely why you are not serious about wanting to know what Christianity is. You are just throwing anything and everything out there to bash not interact.





Allen: No, not with millions of Christians, just one......YOU!

Me: Get real. Millions of Christians believe in absolute truth. You hate that.

Ask Tyrone, Pamela, or other Christians here if I am the only one who believe in absolute truth.


Allen: Yes, I'm positive. It's called self-righteousness. Your faith and personal beliefs and the certainty with which you hold them is an unreliable measure of truth.

Me: And that applies equally to you as well: the certainity with which you believe is right and your faith in what you believe is right on this issue is also unreliable measure. And you are engaging in the same behaviour you accused others of: self-righteousness.

And the sad thing is you do it with such judgmental attitude that is based on so many false premises.

Christians of my beliefs don't hold to we did anything that makes us righteous or that we are self-righteous there.

More proof you can claim whatever you want- that does not make you know what you are talking about.

Christians believe we are declared righteous by God on account of what Christ did on our behalf. Christ is our righteousness, and God declared us as righteous when we believe. Not because we are righteous of our selves, which we are not, since we are sinners.

No one on account of their actions are righteous before God.

Allen: No, wrong again. In a civilized society, who would view killing an entire town or city of men, women, children, babies and animals as "Gods will"? Pol Pot? Omar al-Bashir? Robert Mugabe? Saddam Hussein? Thuyen Tran? (lol)

Me: No, I was not wrong to point out that you are engaging in red herring to raise this point in first place.

You claim there is no law against abortion in the Bible. I pointed out that there is law against murder, and that God also sees babies in the Bible as full human beings. Citing these examples do not take away from fact that you are shooting from the hip about what the Bible says about things like abortion. You were wrong to say the Bible does not condemn abortion at all. I pointed out it did. Citing the other issue is red herring, and you know it.

Like I said at best all you can do is accuse God of hypocrisy by citing that example. Not disprove the fact that you were wrong to claim the Bible never condemn abortion.

And me wrong? I take that with a grain of salt coming from you who pick a spot from the Bible and that somehow make you more knowing of what the Bible teach than me or other Christians here. Or somehow you understand Christianity than we do.

No, you just simply don't understand how God deals with man. The original sentence for all sin was death (the very sentence Christ took on the cross on our behalf btw). And God dealt with nations severely at times. You want a God that is a pushover.

Get a little understanding of law and gospel.

God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and before that flooded the whole earth, and only Noah and his family and the animals he was ordered to gather in the ark survived.

God is no pushover. Not in the OT. Not in the NT.

10:44 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran replies;"You are not referring with the article the book of Revelation that we have in mind in the Bible."

Did'nt I say that????

Back in college, I remember a Christian theologian/scholar stating that the Revelation of Paul was not included in the bible. There was also further debate as to whether or not Paul's own opinions and commands were truly revelations from God.

Then I asked....

Christianity is not my area of expertise, so perhaps one of you can clarify.

You replied, "Revelation was by John, not Paul."

I showed you what Revelation of Paul I was referring to, (which obviously you had NO idea existed). I was asking about what a religious scholar was referring to.

When you replied that, "Revelation was by John, not Paul", I thought perhaps I had a memory laspe mistaking Paul for John. So I Googled them both. And, "lo'and behold"...Revelation of Paul!!

Soooooo...NO, I'm not referring to Revelation in the Bible!!! I was asking about the one the scholar said WAS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

If you don't want to answer the question Tran, just plead the fifth!! I asked if one of you here could clarify the Revelation of Paul question. Perhaps someone else can give a bit of personal insight and interpretaion.

Tran, you can sit this one out. When you said "Revelation was not Paul", it was obvious you did not know there was a Revelation of Paul, so you would'nt know anyway.

It also appears that you're just "copying and pasting" essays and paragraphs from other sites. If I wanted their interpretations, I'd just Google them and read them for myself...

3:45 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen: Tran, you can sit this one out. "When you said "Revelation was not Paul", it was obvious you did not know there was a Revelation of Paul, so you would'nt know anyway.

It also appears that you're just "copying and pasting" essays and paragraphs from other sites. If I wanted their interpretations, I'd just Google them and read them for myself..."


Me: First off, you brought up revelation of Paul as way of arguing about Bible being in doubt. The only way one can make a connection is to assume you speak of Revelation in the Bible. Why argue from a book that is not in the Bible as to cast doubt on books in the Bible? Makes no sense.

Secondly, you should sit this one out if this is route you want to go about posting a source's interpretation. You pasted and copied from RCC site (New Advent) to try to argue there is no writing of Revelation by John. I posted from the SAME EXACT SOURCE (New Advent), but different article from it.

So if you got a big problem with that, you got a big problem with yourself. Don't complain about me using the SAME SOURCE as you do (New Advent) to post its "interpretations."

Thirdly, I am quite aware of different writings that claimed apostolic authorship, such as protoevangelism of James, etc., thank you. But you brought up Revelation of Paul while arguing there is dispute about that as of the Bible to try to punch a hole into argument about true Christianity and the Bible.

Seriously, I am fully aware you don't know much about Christianity. You admitted to that much.

So it is hardly credible for you to decide for Christians what is real Christianity and what is not, and presume to know if creeds answer your questions or not on Christianity.

Like I said, take your own advice, and sit this one out.

12:30 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"Get real. Millions of Christians believe in absolute truth. You hate that."

I don't hate what Christians believe, nor do I hate Christians. That's an ole' republican talking point accusation. Am I to believe that because you are a Christian and I'm not, that you hate me?

Speaking of Republicans and the "hijacking" of religion, I do have a comment/observation I'd like to make with reference to the title of Tyrone's essay.

We all know that politicians will say and do almost anything to get elected. Republicans weren't always the party of religious values.

During the early part of the 1900's up until the 1960's & 70's, the vast majority of religious voters(including what's known as the bible-belt south)were Democrats.

Jerry Falwell was the first to push for MAJOR political clout among Christians. (there were others prior, but Falwell was the most successful) He formed the Moral Majority in 1979 as a platform to oppose abortion, prevent gay rights and to protect family values.

Well, here we are almost 30 years after the "Reagan revolution" involving religious participation in the political process. More than 20 of those years have been led by Republican administrations that have "courted" the Christian vote. Not one of the aforementioned causes taken up by the "Moral Majority" or "Christian Coalition" has ever been directly addressed while a Republican administration was in office. These issues are primarily focused upon during election campaigns and cycles.

Even Bill Clinton admits he signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996during an election cycle. And last years interpretation, Marriage Protection Act, still raises constitutional legal questions from all sides.

The point in fact here is that a sort of "hijacking" of Christianity has occurred. Christians have been told by Republican politicians that the Republican party is the party of their values, when in FACT, the republican party has not delivered on not "ONE" concern after having FIVE (5) terms of republicans in office since 1980.

Gay Rights and Pro-Choice groups have even gotten larger and stronger over the years since the so-called Reagan revolution. There are a fairly large gay republicans, as well as Pro-Choice republicans.

Of course I expect you all as conservatives to blame the Democrats and liberals... after all, who else do you have to blame? The last thing you should want to do is take responsibilty for you own party's failures...(lol)

5:05 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

p Allen "I don't hate what Christians believe, nor do I hate Christians. That's an ole' republican talking point accusation. Am I to believe that because you are a Christian and I'm not, that you hate me?"

Oh really Allen? It's a republican talking point? When true Christians come out against what liberals believe in, are you saying that they aren't called "HOMOPHOBIC"? So when did Obama become a republican? Its liberals who say that republicans want to control women's bodies, and that they want a return to "back alley abortions". So please, don't even go there.

P Allen"erry Falwell was the first to push for MAJOR political clout among Christians. (there were others prior, but Falwell was the most successful) He formed the Moral Majority in 1979 as a platform to oppose abortion, prevent gay rights and to protect family values."

I will agree on that. That is one reason why the Republican party is held to a much higher standard then the Democrat Party.That is also why liberals call conservative Republicans a bunch of "bible thumping" "jesus freaks".

P Allen"More than 20 of those years have been led by Republican administrations that have "courted" the Christian vote. Not one of the aforementioned causes taken up by the "Moral Majority" or "Christian Coalition" has ever been directly addressed while a Republican administration was in office"

Right again allen,but you left our one major consequence that happened to the Republican controlled congress. They lost power two and a half years ago due to straying away from their core base and issues. This is going to come out wrong, but I think you will understand what I'm saying. Conservatives aren't beholden to a Republican Party like most blacks are to the Democrat Party. The GOP thought they had the "evangelical"Christian vote safely locked away, and they felt they didn't have to do anything to maintain that voting block. Well they guessed wrong it seems. Republicans have become there own worse enemy.


P Allen "The point in fact here is that a sort of "hijacking" of Christianity has occurred. Christians have been told by Republican politicians that the Republican party is the party of their values, when in FACT, the republican party has not delivered on not "ONE" concern after having FIVE (5) terms of republicans in office since 1980."

Did it ever occur to you allen that the Republican party was indeed the party of moral values and "family values". What values that democrats especially liberal democats have that is compatible with Christians allen?

P ALlen"Of course I expect you all as conservatives to blame the Democrats and liberals... after all, who else do you have to blame? The last thing you should want to do is take responsibilty for you own party's failures...(lol)"

Republicans only have themselves to blame for losing congress. I just thought of somehing allen. The ACLU ha been the main organization going after anything remotely related to religion in government. Do you think Republican conservatives run the ACLU allen?

11:49 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

Tran, it's fruitless to argue over a definition of Christianity, especially with anti-religious Liberals.

PAA started off by daring others to define "a real Christian Church."

Well, without question, America’s LAWS certainly recognize the difference between what IT considers cults and what it considers religions.

That’s done all the time and the government has taken legal action against “reverends” from “unrecognized” religions taking tax exempt status, while cults from Jim Jones’ to Charles Manson’s, to Marshall Applewhite’s have been targeted and broken up.

The First Amendment really ONLY recognizes the “major (established) religions” – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism. The courts have clearly sided with the government in giving law enforcement wide latitude in discerning cults from religions. Various offshoots from Mormonism to a number of Liberation theology cults masquerading as Christianity have been able to avoid prosecution, but with McCain-Feingold, there are in existence even more strictures AGAINST Church-based political action than ever before...and rightly so. That’s one of the few areas of McCain-Feingold that wasn’t a complete abortion.

There are a large number of “mail order reverends” who’ve done time in prison for tax evasion and no shortage of cults that have called themselves religions that have been targeted for legal action.

There's no question that traditional Christian teachings are incompatible with either Marxism (the foundation of "Liberation Theology") or Muslim theology.

The fact that Jerremiah Wright was himself a Black Muslim makes the teachings of Trinity suspect, to sya the least.

12:09 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen,

Guess what? I'm not Republican.

1:15 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"First off, you brought up revelation of Paul as way of arguing about Bible being in doubt."

WRONG! If you read my statement you would know that I was asking a question. I did not "assert" that anything was in doubt in the bible. My question was; in your personal opinion, what is it that constitutes "real Christianty."
Nothing more, nothing less...

5:03 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"Guess what? I'm not Republican."

Alright! Good for you!

1:40 AM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"My question was; in your personal opinion, what is it that constitutes "real Christianty."
Nothing more, nothing less..."

And my point stands...you didn't like the answer I give (which is that Christianity as expressed by the creeds is real Christianity) so you dismiss what I said is not answer to your question. But it remains...creedal Christianity is what traditional Christians believe.

1:35 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran replies;"And my point stands...you didn't like the answer I give (which is that Christianity as expressed by the creeds is real Christianity) so you dismiss what I said is not answer to your question."

Okay, fine...Your answer is the "creeds" of Christianity is what you believe to be "real" Christianity. I hereby accept your answer... Okay?

Therefore those who have rejected the authority of the creeds, such as Baptist and Quakers, are not "real" Christians. (at least, not in your book) Pat Robertson should be the first to know. Should I write him, or should you?

4:32 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen,

Most Baptists accept the creedal statements on who God is, His triune nature, Christ's virgin birth, atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and future second coming. The only objection they may have is on baptism. But when it comes to what they consider orthodox in regards to the Trinity, they themselves are essentially creedal in their beliefs.

1:03 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran says;"Most Baptists accept the creedal statements on who God is, His triune nature, Christ's virgin birth, atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and future second coming. The only objection they may have is on baptism. But when it comes to what they consider orthodox in regards to the Trinity, they themselves are essentially creedal in their beliefs."

So, "MOST" Baptists that accept the creedal statements are real Christians, the rest are not(in your opinion). Now we're getting somewhere!

Does the Schism between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics play into this "reality" of beliefs and faith? Since the Orthodox do not recognize the Pope as the primary leader of the church, are these "essentially creedal" beliefs accepted by both sides as "real" Christianity? And what about the non-celibacy issue among Orthodox priests and the other issues that have kept the schism in tact for 1000 years?

7:02 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

"Does the Schism between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics play into this "reality" of beliefs and faith? Since the Orthodox do not recognize the Pope as the primary leader of the church, are these "essentially creedal" beliefs accepted by both sides as "real" Christianity? And what about the non-celibacy issue among Orthodox priests and the other issues that have kept the schism in tact for 1000 years?"


Guess what? Both EOS and RCCs accept the creeds as defining Christianity. Their only real difference is on whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or not. But both sides accept the creeds themselves as from the original catholic church (both sides claim to be the true catholic church).

So your attempt to try to put EOs against the creeds or RCCs against the creeds fall flat on that basis here.

And on the priesthood issue, that is not addressed by the creeds. Next.

Nor do the creeds deal with the issue of the papacy.

2:02 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Tran;"both sides claim to be the true catholic church"

Are you saying one side is not the "real" thing, or both sides are? It seems to me if both side's claim to be the "true" church, both would also claim the other is "not" the true church.

Tran;"So your attempt to try to put EOs against the creeds or RCCs against the creeds fall flat on that basis here."

There you go again man.... How can I attempt to "put anyone against anyone", when I asked a question with concerns to what "YOU" believe???? Read the question again...PLEASE....

"Since the Orthodox do not recognize the Pope as the primary leader of the church, are these "essentially creedal" beliefs accepted by both sides as "real" Christianity?"

It would be the same as ME asking you YOU;

If the U.S. does not recognize another country's leader, (and that country is one of the 192 belonging to the U.N.), should both countries be bound by a same U.N. resolution?

Of course your answer would depend on which country you were, and what the U.N. resolution was.

But, IN NO WAY DOES IT IMPLY THAT I AM "PITTING" ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. It's a very simply an non-prejudicial question. You seem to take offense to almost every thing I say. My suggestion is that you get over it and debate what I write and say, AND NOT WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING...

5:59 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

Wow... I am sorry I missed this one. I must admit you guys did an outstanding job and held your own.

When PAA said, "Let me be honest here, religion, particularly Christianity, is not my strong suit. Frankly, when I read through the King James Bible at times I come up with interpretations that differ from what some others might take from the same verses and/or scripture. Thus, I'm not going to attempt to debate scripture, religious doctrine, dogma nor veneration." It became clear to me that no matter what was said, he would not be understood.

Although he makes an attempt, PAA can't rationally discuss what he doesn't understand. He doesn't understand because he lacks the faith. IMO, the faith needs to proceed the understanding.

PAA. The only think I would like to add is... If you sincerely ask God for understanding and have faith, then the understanding will come on God's schedule. I promise.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5

To those among us who understand...

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Matthew 13:13

God Bless.

8:41 PM  
Blogger Thuyen Tran said...

Allen: My suggestion is that you get over it and debate what I write and say, AND NOT WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING...

Me: And I suggest you get over me answering how I want to answer your questions.

You asked repeatedly what defines a true Christian church. I pointed out the creeds. You mocked that as not answering your question despite admitting you don't know much about Christianity and don't know even know what the creeds say. It suggests you are the one who needs to get over yourself. If you don't know, then don't pretend to like tell others who do know that they cannot possibly be right in defining what they believe is true Christianity. It is embarrassing on your part.

I suggest you debate what I write as well. You mock me posting info from the very RCC website yourself used for info. See why I have a hard time taking you seriously your claim that you are interested in real debate on Christianity rather than you just throwing out anything that comes up in your mind to undermine Christianity?

And you made alot of ignorant statements. That is a fact.

EOs and RCCs accept the creeds as true Christianity. You did bring them as if they somehow show that the creeds are not accepted as true Christianity. I pointed out these are bad examples.

My answers stand. I might have gotten your motives wrong. But facts are facts when it comes to RCCs and EOs, and you are wrong in your assumptions there.

And you are wrong to assume most Baptists don't accept the creeds as test of orthdodoxy especially when it comes to the Trinity, atonement, resurrection, etc.

RCCs and EOs both see themselves as the true church, but RCCs also see EOs as valid communion. And both do see non-RCCs and non-EOs if they are saved as mystically made part of the one true church.

10:02 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Eric; "Although he makes an attempt, PAA can't rationally discuss what he doesn't understand. He doesn't understand because he lacks the faith. IMO, the faith needs to proceed the understanding"

And I won't attempt to debate you or anyone else on Christianity. Did'nt I say that from the outset?

However, I never said that I was "without faith." I'm not a Christian. You seem to be saying that since I am not a Christian, that I am without faith. I would hope that you're not saying that...

Eric;"PAA. The only think I would like to add is... If you sincerely ask God for understanding and have faith, then the understanding will come on God's schedule. I promise."

Proselytizing Eric? Thats something I don't do either...

3:24 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

PAA: Proselytizing Eric? Thats something I don't do either...

PAA, you seemed to have questions about "real faith." If you are truly interested in understanding, then I offer you the route to the path of understanding. Don't be offended, I would offer the same to anyone with such questions. I can only make the offer. The choice is and always will be up to you to choose your own path of faith and to accept where it leads you.

You were merely offered a means to finding the answers to your own questions. As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt about the definition of "real faith." Maybe one day you will understand "real faith" for yourself.

7:55 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Eric;"PAA, you seemed to have questions about "real faith."

I asked for your definition of "real faith." I have my own faith, as you have yours. I also asked a definition of real Christian. I got few answers which I accepted.

As beauty rests in the eyes of the beholder, faith resides within each mans heart.

11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home