Isn't 'forgiveness' wonderful?

[Zzyzx]

.
Pastor received standing ovation from congregation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tryst.html

A married pastor gets caught committing adultery with a parishioner who is married, runs away naked – and just asks for forgiveness and gets a standing ovation from this congregation.

Is this part of what is billed as a superior moral code?

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps we may agree that in order to be legitimately termed a "Christian", one must at least believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (even if they may not understand the theological implications: that it validates His claim to be the creator God, YHWH).)

Many theologians, scholars, religious leaders, and entire denominations do not believe the tales of bodily resurrection.

A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ction.html

Most Christian faith groups teach that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was resurrected about a day and a half after his execution by the occupying Roman army circa 33 CE. By "resurrection" they believe that he returned to life in the same body in which he had died.
To most Christians, Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, and a required belief like his virgin birth, his divinity, his sinless nature, and other cardinal religious doctrines. In fact, many Christian leaders consider his resurrection to be the fundamental belief underpinning Christianity.
However, not everybody accepts Jesus' bodily resurrection as literally true. Most public opinion polls ask whether the subjects believe in the resurrection or not. However, a Beliefnet poll -- current as of 2008-OCT -- went into further depth. They found that:
72% of its visitors believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected.
20% believe that he was raised from the dead, but only spiritually.
8% do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec5.htm

Those who do not believe in bodily / physical resurrection (including said theologians, scholars, religious leaders, and entire denominations) are now declared Non-Christian by criteria set forth by an anonymous internet debater.

Of course, theologians and scholars “may not understand the theological implications� – BUT a local expert DOES understand.

[Volbrigade]

.

Perhaps we may agree that in order to be legitimately termed a "Christian", one must at least believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (even if they may not understand the theological implications: that it validates His claim to be the creator God, YHWH).)

Many theologians, scholars, religious leaders, and entire denominations do not believe the tales of bodily resurrection.

A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ction.html

Most Christian faith groups teach that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was resurrected about a day and a half after his execution by the occupying Roman army circa 33 CE. By "resurrection" they believe that he returned to life in the same body in which he had died.
To most Christians, Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, and a required belief like his virgin birth, his divinity, his sinless nature, and other cardinal religious doctrines. In fact, many Christian leaders consider his resurrection to be the fundamental belief underpinning Christianity.
However, not everybody accepts Jesus' bodily resurrection as literally true. Most public opinion polls ask whether the subjects believe in the resurrection or not. However, a Beliefnet poll -- current as of 2008-OCT -- went into further depth. They found that:
72% of its visitors believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected.
20% believe that he was raised from the dead, but only spiritually.
8% do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec5.htm

Those who do not believe in bodily / physical resurrection (including said theologians, scholars, religious leaders, and entire denominations) are now declared Non-Christian by criteria set forth by an anonymous internet debater.

Of course, theologians and scholars “may not understand the theological implications� – BUT a local expert DOES understand.

The proper term for people who continue to profess to be "Christians", when they disavow the central tenets of the faith -- and none is more central than the Resurrection -- so that they can continue to draw salaries, wear pretty robes, work in beautiful buildings, enjoy invitations to sit at the head tables at ecumenical and civic functions, and enjoy the petting and approval of those who do not know what "Christian" means, and who believe in nothing (or anything),

is "quisling". Or, perhaps, "scoundrel". Among others.

Do they express what may be termed "part of... a superior (secular) moral code"?

Disappointing that you should re-enter the discussion on that note -- that there are clergy who traitorously deny Christ, which is irrelevant.

I was hoping that the following might've garnered your response, instead:

Quote:Zzyzx

Quote:
JJ50 wrote:

The congregation must be pretty sick to applaud the guy for cheating on his wife!

Those people might elect him president of the US.

Am I wrong to infer that this is a reference to the "sort of people" who elected our current -- ahem -- president?

If so, an interesting comment.

Because "those people" did "elect our president". Twice. 2008, and 2012.

Their counterparts in this past election tend to have a MUCH lower concentration of melanin in their epidermis.

[Zzyzx]

.

Those who do not believe in bodily / physical resurrection (including said theologians, scholars, religious leaders, and entire denominations) are now declared Non-Christian by criteria set forth by an anonymous internet debater.

Of course, theologians and scholars “may not understand the theological implications� – BUT a local expert DOES understand.

The proper term for people who continue to profess to be "Christians", when they disavow the central tenets of the faith -- and none is more central than the Resurrection -- so that they can continue to draw salaries, wear pretty robes, work in beautiful buildings, enjoy invitations to sit at the head tables at ecumenical and civic functions, and enjoy the petting and approval of those who do not know what "Christian" means, and who believe in nothing (or anything), is "quisling". Or, perhaps, "scoundrel". Among others.

There has been disagreement among Christians since very early times regarding whether the resurrection was spiritual or bodily / physical. The latter group evidently had the most votes or influence (which does not assure that they were / are right – just most popular).

However, let's write off a substantial portion of Christendom (that regards the resurrection as spiritual rather than bodily) as "quisling" or "scoundrel". Why not add 'apostate', 'ingrate', 'heathen', 'pagan', 'infidel', 'false teacher', and other dismissive terminology . . .

That should help accelerate the decline of Christianity already evidenced by surveys and by reduced church attendance. Traditionalists / Fundamentalists who continue to insist that to be considered (by them) a Christian, everyone must adhere strictly to their 'interpretation' of 'scripture' should drive away less fanatical people.

Non-Christians can enjoy watching self-identified “REAL Christians� condemn each other – denigrating everyone who does not agree with their opinions. Arguing about which sect is 'right' about scripture has already resulted in fragmentation (tens of thousands of denominations – all thinking THEY are the 'one true path to salvation') – producing 'A house divided' that can destroy itself from within.

I heartily approve – and encourage the internecine warfare. I also appreciate religionists railing against education, science, intelligence, critical thinking – and claiming all are part of a grand conspiracy against religion. That should increasingly alienate younger generations, so as the older generations die out, their beliefs should increasingly die with them.

Carry on.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 33 by Zzyzx]

You really could not have missed the point more.

I will be glad to have a conversation, over a beer or a cuppa joe, with any poor misinformed lay person who calls themselves a "Christian", but denies the Resurrection.

Just as I will be glad to call any clergyman who belongs to any denomination whose faith statement is inclusive of the items listed in the Apostles Creed , and who takes a salary in that capacity while denying the Resurrection of Christ, exactly what he is: a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute.

A clergyman who does not believe in the Resurrection, and does not take payment from a denomination or congregation that does, is merely a "Unitarian". And not worthy of either rancor or notice.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 34 by Volbrigade]

Opinion noted -- and worthless in debate.

Just as I will be glad to call any clergyman who belongs to any denomination whose faith statement is inclusive of the items listed in the Apostles Creed , and who takes a salary in that capacity while denying the Resurrection of Christ, exactly what he is: a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute.

And, they are entitled to call YOU "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute" for disagreeing with their opinion.

It is amusing to watch Christians denigrate each other and call each other "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute". That demonstrates for all to see, the hypocrisy of those who claim to follow 'love thy neighbor' but act exactly the opposite -- even toward fellow Christians.

Carry on.

[Volbrigade]

.
[Replying to post 34 by Volbrigade]

Opinion noted -- and worthless in debate.

Unless it's yours?

Just as I will be glad to call any clergyman who belongs to any denomination whose faith statement is inclusive of the items listed in the Apostles Creed , and who takes a salary in that capacity while denying the Resurrection of Christ, exactly what he is: a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute.

And, they are entitled to call YOU "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute" for disagreeing with their opinion.

It is amusing to watch Christians denigrate each other and call each other "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute". That demonstrates for all to see, the hypocrisy of those who claim to follow 'love thy neighbor' but act exactly the opposite -- even toward fellow Christians.

Carry on.

[/quote]

You shame me.

Of course, you are correct. It was wrong of me to refer to someone who took money in the capacity of a Christian clergyman, but who did not believe the tenets of the faith, as a "prostitute".

I owe an apology to prostitutes. I regret denigrating them with the comparison.

Almost as much as I regret discussing Christianity with someone who has no opinion what a "Christian" is.

[Zzyzx]

.

Opinion noted -- and worthless in debate.

Unless it's yours?

My opinion is not accorded any special worth in debate. When I state a position, however, I am prepared to provide substantiating evidence. That is one reason I am not a Theist.

Just as I will be glad to call any clergyman who belongs to any denomination whose faith statement is inclusive of the items listed in the Apostles Creed , and who takes a salary in that capacity while denying the Resurrection of Christ, exactly what he is: a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute.

And, they are entitled to call YOU "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute" for disagreeing with their opinion.

It is amusing to watch Christians denigrate each other and call each other "a reprehensible fraud, phony, and prostitute". That demonstrates for all to see, the hypocrisy of those who claim to follow 'love thy neighbor' but act exactly the opposite -- even toward fellow Christians.

You shame me.

Everyone is free to shame themselves and the cause they champion.

Of course, you are correct. It was wrong of me to refer to someone who took money in the capacity of a Christian clergyman, but who did not believe the tenets of the faith, as a "prostitute".

Evidently preaching without believing 'the tenants of the faith' is not uncommon for Christian ministers – as indicated by www.clergyproject.org

I owe an apology to prostitutes. I regret denigrating them with the comparison.

Relating to the OP:

A married pastor gets caught committing adultery with a parishioner who is married, runs away naked – and just asks for forgiveness and gets a standing ovation from this congregation.

Is this part of what is billed as a superior moral code?

Almost as much as I regret discussing Christianity with someone who has no opinion what a "Christian" is.

Christians don't know 'what a Christian is'. That topic has been discussed many times in these threads. For instance: 'What, EXACTLY, is a Christian?'
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

I have started yet another thread. Let's see if Christians can agree upon what 'a Christian IS' http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 823#847823

In previous threads, there have been no answers acceptable to Christianity in general. There are OPINIONS – perhaps 40,000 of the (one for each denomination) – or perhaps one for each Christian – but NO general agreement. Evidently, Christians cannot agree among themselves what is required to become a member of the club.

In this Forum a Christian is defined as anyone who self-identifies as Christian. No one is entitled to say 'Oh no you're not' or 'You don't meet MY requirements'.

When I encounter someone in real life saying “I am a Christian�, my response (whether spoken or not) is, “That and a few dollars will get you a cup of coffee�.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Is this part of what is billed as a superior moral code?

I think so...

The more SUPERIOR the sin one cries about, the better it is.
If he murders someone and then feels real bad, they might throw the guy a party.

Maybe with beverages, too.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 30 by Volbrigade]

I thought that's what the "Resurrections and Hyderdimensions" thread was all about.

We are indeed having a perfectly fine more or less private chat in the "Resurrections and Hyderdimensions" thread (General Chat subforum). But there is no reason why we should not share some of our thoughts other forum members.

This one was intended to cast aspersions upon an entire faith system (Christianity), based on the "moral code" expressed by one African-American congregation in Florida, of which the OP apparently disapproves.

Somewhere in there, apparently and in the mind of the thread's initiator, is a subject for debate.

Though none of its non-believing participants appear able to say what a "Christian" is, or to what the label applies.

Christianity encompasses a very wide range of beliefs, claims and concepts. Not all of them compatible with each other. Which would lead one to conclude that SOME of you must have it wrong, and are entirely unaware of that fact. One of the things that all Christians seem to hold in concurrence, is the utter certainty that THEY represent a real genuine true Christian. I have noticed , after years of conversations with "Christians," that a real, true and genuine Christian is invariably represented by whomever I happen to be conversing with at that moment. We have Mormons, JWs and Catholics here on the forum, among others, and they are all quite convinced that they clearly and definitely represent "true" Christianity. Not being a Christian myself, I find I must take those who claim to be Christian at their word. Which makes me more accepting than most Christians are, it would seem.

Perhaps we may agree that in order to be legitimately termed a "Christian", one must at least believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (even if they may not understand the theological implications: that it validates His claim to be the creator God, YHWH).

My experience is that the vast majority of those who declare themselves to be Christians accept this premise.

As for your complaint that no one else in the last 2,000 claimed to be God, and then validated it by their resurrection into a hyperdimensional mode of existence, and was seen, touched, and broke bread with those that loved them, before ceasing to manifest on the sliver of reality that may be termed the "physical plane" --

I don't believe that I ever made such a complaint, exactly. I have simply disparaged what is after all the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. Not an unreasonable point of disparagement, surely.

That doesn't invalidate the Resurrection of Christ.

It serves to corroborate it.

This reminds me of the lady that once claimed that Christianity is too unbelievable NOT to be true. I sometimes wonder if believers ever actually listen to the things that they say.

The claim itself is clearly self-invalidating. The expectation therefore is that the claim must be associated with a veritable profusion of undeniable evidence to support it. And yet, after sifting though the evidence that is offered, what we discover is that the evidence is entirely composed of "because Christians say so." And Christians can't even come close to agreeing among themselves.