Why does Christianity evolve?

[nobspeople]

Arguably, Christianity was as different, when it originally started amongst the various groups with different ideals, than today's view.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rsity.html

Even among modern Christian societies, there are differences (Catholic, Protestant and (Eastern) Orthodox).

If Christianity is so right, so strong, so righteous, so...'God'... one would think it would change its environment and not be changed by its environment.
It seems, at least in America, American society is, in some ways, changing Christianity.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... he-gospel/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christia ... t_b_817102 *

So why does it change over time? Is it 'God's will'? Is it just made up mumbo jumbo? Or do people just not care, anymore?

EDIT: * Forgot to include originally

[Paul of Tarsus]

I do not reject the fact that there are dead remains in graves, tombs, etc. I reject the idea that this somehow proves there is no resurrection to come.

Why do you reject the very robust and universal evidence that death is permanent? Do you deny what you cannot accept?

How do you know that without that promise of eternal life, nobody would pay much attention to Christ?

Because I know me. I started following Christ - not for a reward - but out of love for Him. I am sure I am not the only person this applies to.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that anybody would be obsessed with any Christ who doesn't offer eternal life. We are told that Christ made no secret that he offered eternal life to his followers. So he appears to have understood that few would follow him without that promise. If you are right, however, then he was wasting his breath not needing to offer it.

People abandoning faith in Christ realizing there's no eternal life hasn't happened yet.

I am sure it has happened in those who believe there is no eternal life. But you didn't say 'some would not pay attention to Christ', you said NOBODY would pay attention to Christ.

Abandoning faith in Christ could happen to anybody and everybody--it's possible. By your own reasoning, you cannot deny what has not happened yet.

I don't see much he has to offer otherwise.

Love, truth, fruits of the spirit, joy, guidance, aid, forgiveness, the ability to know also the Father, peace. And yes, Christ offers eternal life as well.

Christ isn't necessary for most of the items on your list. The other items have never been demonstrated to be genuine. Anyway, why do you need love and forgiveness? Do you feel unloved? What did you do to need forgiveness?

But do you only love other people for what they can give you, or do you sometimes love other people because of who they are? If you can answer that question with a 'no' and then a 'yes', then it should not be so hard to grasp that some would also love Christ (and His Father) for who they are, even while being grateful for any gift that they give.

I'm not sure how to answer questions about whom I love and why. I don't love the word love! What does it mean? It's a weasel word. People often use that word to deceive and take advantage of other people. It's happened to me often enough. So I can't be impressed with all this Christ-love talk. Talk is often cheap, and talk of love is often the cheapest talk especially in a religious context.

I already explained that anything that people want that comes at the cost of hurting others is something I hope they never get.

But isn't that also something that you want?

No.

I hope Christians never receive their salvation for the same reason I hope a man who wants to rape a woman never succeeds in doing so.

This is a warped view of salvation. What about those Christans who rejoice for anyone being able to receive eternal life (Christian or non-Christian)?

My view of people's desire for salvation is, in my view, quite accurate. Those who rejoice for somebody they think will go to heaven, usually a loved one, do so largely because it serves to assure them of their own hope for eternal life. The expression "go to hell" which is closely related to the idea of salvation (thinking others will go to hell is a kind of salvation) is based in the preaching attributed to Christ and appears to be wishful thinking.

You understand that they were the ones who were slaughtered, right?
You also understand that the the response they get is to WAIT, right?

Yes, we are told they were slaughtered--a result of their love for Christ, no doubt. Their being slaughtered evidently made them so angry and hateful that they literally screamed for revenge.

Christ's love--how wonderful it is!

I will take your advice here and use it to scrutinize you.

Do as you choose, it doesn't make what I said any less true.

My point is that nobody is immune to being a phony. It's not always the other person who is guilty of deception.

Oh but I have seen and have known Christ, but I failed to see or know God. Can you falsify my claim here?

I don't have to. You have done that yourself.

I tried it--I saw no Christ and saw no God and know nothing for sure about either one of them. - "Paul of Tarsus"

I assume you think my latter statement falsifies my prior statement. All you've proved is that I made two different statements at two different times. As such, the two statements are not contradictory. (Contradictory statements cannot be all true at the same time.) Neither have you demonstrated that either statement is false. Both statements are unfalsifiable even if contradictory. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true, but if they are unfalsifiable, you cannot know which is true and which is false.

Anyway, my main point here is that essentially any claim you make about Christ is unfalsifiable which in a way is to your advantage because you safeguard your rhetoric from being disproved. I've noticed that religious claims are almost always unfalsifiable. It's one reason why religion keeps on going, I suppose.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I do not reject the fact that there are dead remains in graves, tombs, etc. I reject the idea that this somehow proves there is no resurrection to come.

Why do you reject the very robust and universal evidence that death is permanent? Do you deny what you cannot accept?

Re-read my statement:

I reject the idea that this (the fact that there are dead remains in graves, tombs, etc) somehow proves there is no resurrection to come.

If you think that proves there is no resurrection to come, then please, demonstrate it.

Cancer was permanent until it was not. Some forms are still permanent, but that might not always be so.
Gender at birth was permanent until it was not.

Just because something seems permanent, does not mean that it is permanent. In the case of the resurrection, it means even less, since the resurrection is not even supposed to have happened yet.

It's almost as if you (and others) think we (anyone whose faith is in Christ and/or who believes in a resurrection) didn't realize there were actually dead bodies in graves; tombs.

How do you know that without that promise of eternal life, nobody would pay much attention to Christ?

Because I know me. I started following Christ - not for a reward - but out of love for Him. I am sure I am not the only person this applies to.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that anybody would be obsessed with any Christ who doesn't offer eternal life.

So?

(note that you tend to change your wording a bit - here, from 'not pay much attention to'... to... 'obsessed with')

We are told that Christ made no secret that he offered eternal life to his followers. So he appears to have understood that few would follow him without that promise. If you are right, however, then he was wasting his breath not needing to offer it.

If it is something true that He could give, then He was not wasting His breath speaking the truth, especially not to those He loves.

Note though that there are many who rejected Him despite His words and His offer, so obviously someone following Him (and remaining with Him even in troubles) had to do with more than an offer of eternal life.

People abandoning faith in Christ realizing there's no eternal life hasn't happened yet.

I am sure it has happened in those who believe there is no eternal life. But you didn't say 'some would not pay attention to Christ', you said NOBODY would pay attention to Christ.

Abandoning faith in Christ could happen to anybody and everybody--it's possible. By your own reasoning, you cannot deny what has not happened yet.

Since I said that I am sure it has happened in those who believe there is no eternal life, what is your point?

I don't see much he has to offer otherwise.

Love, truth, fruits of the spirit, joy, guidance, aid, forgiveness, the ability to know also the Father, peace. And yes, Christ offers eternal life as well.

Christ isn't necessary for most of the items on your list. The other items have never been demonstrated to be genuine.

All have been demonstrated to be genuine to me. I have received love (as a gift and fruit of the spirit), truth from Christ; I have received joy, faith, ears to hear, guidance, aid, protection, forgiveness, and peace... all in/from Christ and His Father.

Anyway, why do you need love and forgiveness? Do you feel unloved?

Why does a person need love?

Love begets love; being loved makes a person feel safe, secure, good, happy, comforted, etc. I love my Lord and my Father in heaven; I am so humbled and overjoyed to be loved.

What did you do to need forgiveness?

None of your business.

But do you only love other people for what they can give you, or do you sometimes love other people because of who they are? If you can answer that question with a 'no' and then a 'yes', then it should not be so hard to grasp that some would also love Christ (and His Father) for who they are, even while being grateful for any gift that they give.

I'm not sure how to answer questions about whom I love and why. I don't love the word love! What does it mean? It's a weasel word. People often use that word to deceive and take advantage of other people. It's happened to me often enough. So I can't be impressed with all this Christ-love talk. Talk is often cheap, and talk of love is often the cheapest talk especially in a religious context.

Someone using the word love (to deceive and take advantage of people), a) is not love; and b) has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I didn't ask you about people using the word to deceive. I asked you a specific question about actual love.

I already explained that anything that people want that comes at the cost of hurting others is something I hope they never get.

But isn't that also something that you want?

No.

I hope Christians never receive their salvation for the same reason I hope a man who wants to rape a woman never succeeds in doing so.

This is a warped view of salvation. What about those Christans who rejoice for anyone being able to receive eternal life (Christian or non-Christian)?

My view of people's desire for salvation is, in my view, quite accurate.

Well it is not accurate in my case, nor in the case of others I know.

Those who rejoice for somebody they think will go to heaven, usually a loved one, do so largely because it serves to assure them of their own hope for eternal life.The expression "go to hell" which is closely related to the idea of salvation (thinking others will go to hell is a kind of salvation) is based in the preaching attributed to Christ and appears to be wishful thinking.

We have had enough conversations that you should know this is not how I have spoken about salvation (and certainly not about 'hell').

I will take your advice here and use it to scrutinize you.

Do as you choose, it doesn't make what I said any less true.

My point is that nobody is immune to being a phony. It's not always the other person who is guilty of deception.

Was that a point that needed to be made?

Oh but I have seen and have known Christ, but I failed to see or know God. Can you falsify my claim here?

I don't have to. You have done that yourself.

I tried it--I saw no Christ and saw no God and know nothing for sure about either one of them. - "Paul of Tarsus"

I assume you think my latter statement falsifies my prior statement. All you've proved is that I made two different statements at two different times.

Uh huh.

If you are claiming to have seen Christ at some point, then you know there is a resurrection - and you know that He spoke the truth - and you know that the witness accounts (such as from the disciple Christ loved) are true. Why then would you argue against such things? Why would you later say that you know nothing for sure about either Him or His Father?


So either you are telling the truth - in which case you admit that Christ is alive even now. Or you are not telling the truth - and your statement is false.



Peace again to you.

[Paul of Tarsus]

.. many scholars contend that "Irenaeus was confused and inaccurate" regarding the authorship of John and that we will never know who wrote the fourth Gospel.

The writer himself never claims to be John the point however is that whoever he was, the writer testifies To be an eyewitness of the events recorded and that such a claim is substantiated by outside sources.

If we don't know who the writer of the fourth gospel is, then we cannot know that he was an eyewitness. His claiming to be an eyewitness doesn't prove anything. Do you believe the testimony of those who've said they've seen bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster? You don't if you're sensible. So why believe the writer of the fourth gospel? (Hint: Because the Watchtower Society told me to is not a good answer.)

Prove the claim false.

I can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

It is not an unfalsifiable claim; you have but to present evidence that the witness could not possibly have been where he claimed to be at the time he claimed to be there. Or prove that what he claimed to witness could not possibly have happened.

LOL--it's not possible to prove either one.

Otherwise, you got nothing and the witness stands...

If the "witness stands" then so does your hope to live in that paradise earth that those guys in New York promised you. You're not the least bit unwilling to believe otherwise, now are you, JW?

Like I explained to Tam, essentially all of the supernatural claims made by Christianity along with most of the natural claims it makes are not falsifiable. For example, no Christian will make a claim like the following:

Do A.
Supernatural event B promised by God or Jesus will result.
If B doesn't happen, then you know that Christianity's promise, if A then B, is a false promise.

Instead we are bombarded with rationalizations for everything that does or does not happen. It goes like this:

Do A.
Whether B happens or doesn't happen--God gets the glory.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I reject the idea that this (the fact that there are dead remains in graves, tombs, etc) somehow proves there is no resurrection to come.

I can't think of better evidence against a supposed future resurrection than universally available empirical evidence that death is permanent. Can you?

If it is something true that He could give, then He was not wasting His breath speaking the truth, especially not to those He loves.

If Christ's followers follow him not seeking eternal life, then what's the point in his offering it? Why would he offer them something that they don't need to be offered? It seems to me that if you're right on this issue, then Christ's offering eternal life was irrelevant to his evangelization.

Note though that there are many who rejected Him despite His words and His offer...

They were the smart ones. None of them needed to fear being martyred for Christ.

...so obviously someone following Him (and remaining with Him even in troubles) had to do with more than an offer of eternal life.

I don't follow your logic. Those who were faithful to Christ and all the trouble he caused for them could have done so because they sought eternal life even if others didn't buy it.

Christ isn't necessary for most of the items on your list. The other items have never been demonstrated to be genuine.

All have been demonstrated to be genuine to me.

That's an unfalsifiable claim.

I have received love (as a gift and fruit of the spirit), truth from Christ; I have received joy, faith, ears to hear, guidance, aid, protection, forgiveness, and peace... all in/from Christ and His Father.

Why not get all that from people?

What did you do to need forgiveness?

None of your business.

You just blatantly disobeyed one of Christ's chief commandments. He told us to confess our sins. As his disciple James tells us (James 5:16):

Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

And in 1 John 1:9:

If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Let me show you how it's done. When I was in high school, I bullied another boy in school. I treated him terribly. I even hit him and spat on him! About two years ago, I contacted him on FaceBook on his birthday. In addition to wishing him a happy birthday, I told him that I acted like a real jerk with him when we were in school, and I apologized to him for what I did to him.

Notice that in addition to my honest confession, I didn't confess to some guy in the sky or asked that guy in the sky to forgive me. I asked a real guy--the person I really needed forgiveness from--to forgive me.

Can you see how much better my approach to forgiveness is than yours? I did some real good to a real person whom I really hurt, and I have honestly admitted what I did! Compare my response to the issue of confessing wrongdoing to yours, and you should understand why no sensible person believes your claims about Christ.

Someone using the word love (to deceive and take advantage of people), a) is not love; and b) has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I didn't ask you about people using the word to deceive. I asked you a specific question about actual love.

After what you just posted, it seems odd to me that you would expect anybody to want your love. And I just got done explaining that I don't know what "actual love" is.

My point is that nobody is immune to being a phony. It's not always the other person who is guilty of deception.

Was that a point that needed to be made?

I think so considering the disobedience to Christ that you just demonstrated.

If you are claiming to have seen Christ at some point, then you know there is a resurrection - and you know that He spoke the truth - and you know that the witness accounts (such as from the disciple Christ loved) are true.

That's a non sequitur. I can claim to have seen Christ yet be ignorant of a resurrection.

So either you are telling the truth - in which case you admit that Christ is alive even now. Or you are not telling the truth - and your statement is false.

Actually, I could have been telling the truth both times, but you'll never know which times.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I reject the idea that this (the fact that there are dead remains in graves, tombs, etc) somehow proves there is no resurrection to come.

I can't think of better evidence against a supposed future resurrection than universally available empirical evidence that death is permanent. Can you?

That is not evidence against a future resurrection at all. It would be evidence against a resurrection of mankind having already happened. But not against a future resurrection.

If it is something true that He could give, then He was not wasting His breath speaking the truth, especially not to those He loves.

If Christ's followers follow him not seeking eternal life, then what's the point in his offering it?

Love. Truth.

I have received love (as a gift and fruit of the spirit), truth from Christ; I have received joy, faith, ears to hear, guidance, aid, protection, forgiveness, and peace... all in/from Christ and His Father.

Why not get all that from people?

The question is irrelevant.

(and people cannot give all those things anyway)

What did you do to need forgiveness?

None of your business.

You just blatantly disobeyed one of Christ's chief commandments. He told us to confess our sins. As his disciple James tells us (James 5:16):

Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

A - that would be James speaking, not Christ.

B - James is not suggesting that you and I just go up to random people who are demanding to know what we need to be forgiven for, and then tell them things we have done wrong. Note that he instructs people to confess their sins to one another, and pray for one another, that they may be healed. How does that apply to the question that you asked me? Are you going to forgive me for some wrong I did that has nothing to do with you? Do you have that authority? Did you ask me that question so you could pray for me that I may be healed?

And in 1 John 1:9:

If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Would that not mean confessing our sins to Him? Since He is the one doing the forgiving?

Let me show you how it's done. When I was in high school, I bullied another boy in school. I treated him terribly. I even hit him and spat on him! About two years ago, I contacted him on FaceBook on his birthday. In addition to wishing him a happy birthday, I told him that I acted like a real jerk with him when we were in school, and I apologized to him for what I did to him.

Notice that in addition to my honest confession, I didn't confess to some guy in the sky or asked that guy in the sky to forgive me. I asked a real guy--the person I really needed forgiveness from--to forgive me. Can you see how much better my approach to forgiveness is than yours? I did some real good to a real person whom I really hurt, and I have honestly admitted what I did!

When did I ever say that we should not apologize to the people we have wronged? Even make amends if possible? I have done that before. Who has never wronged another person, and apologized to them? That does not mean that I am obligated to tell YOU those things. Nor were you obligated to tell me (though I thank you for the example so I could understand what you meant.)

But how does that apply to you asking me to tell you something I have done that requires forgiveness? What was your purpose in asking me that question?

Compare my response to the issue of confessing wrongdoing to yours, and you should understand why no sensible person believes your claims about Christ.

That doesn't make sense.

Someone using the word love (to deceive and take advantage of people), a) is not love; and b) has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I didn't ask you about people using the word to deceive. I asked you a specific question about actual love.

After what you just posted, it seems odd to me that you would expect anybody to want your love.

Who in the world said that I expect anything?

And I just got done explaining that I don't know what "actual love" is.

I am sorry then.

The immediate thing that comes to mind is:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. 1 Corinth 13:4-8

But also that love forgives; love is merciful, love hopes (and works for) the best for another person. If one is a person of faith (in Christ and His Father), then love prays for others, even one's own enemies. Love gives to the one in need.

(Love even gives one's life for others. As for that last one, many (not all) may be willing to give their life for their own personal loved ones (children, spouse), but perhaps not so much for an enemy. Christ gave His life even for those who were yet His enemies.)

My point is that nobody is immune to being a phony. It's not always the other person who is guilty of deception.

Was that a point that needed to be made?

I think so considering the disobedience to Christ that you just demonstrated.

If I said I never sin, then I would be guilty of deception. Then I would be phony. But that is not what I said.

If you are claiming to have seen Christ at some point, then you know there is a resurrection - and you know that He spoke the truth - and you know that the witness accounts (such as from the disciple Christ loved) are true.

That's a non sequitur. I can claim to have seen Christ yet be ignorant of a resurrection.

How could you see someone who died two thousand years ago, if that person has remained dead permanently since then?


Peace again to you.

[brunumb]

Otherwise, you got nothing and the witness stands,

Actually, you don't have a witness. You only have unverified claims.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Why not get all that from people?

The question is irrelevant.

So is the truth apparently. I try not to waste my time debating those who have an agenda they value more than the truth.

[tam]

Peace again,

Why not get all that from people?

The question is irrelevant.

So is the truth apparently.

The question was irrelevant (though I did give an answer, at least in part). You had asked what Christ gives; I responded.

The truth is not irrelevant.


Peace again.