How To Shrink Your Church In One Easy Step

[protestantinca]

I don’t think you have a point. The reason why, as you move up the chain, this approach becomes less prevalent is because more advanced species are more capable of killing other species and defending themselves. This doesn’t apply to the people situation, especially considering that the more “sophisticated” humans tend to look unfavorably upon genocide. Besides, labeling pursuit of large families as “unsophisticated” does not change the demographics or the outcome. Even those unsophisticated swarms of insects have been known to take out entire human populations by the destruction of their crops.

Agree!

Good Morning Protestantinca: Please explain that position if you would.

All the best,
Gary

Easy. A key (I would even say “the key”) teaching of Christianity is that Jesus’ message was the absolute final revelation. God had sent prophets earlier to no avail so He send himself in human form to let humankind know that indeed, He knows what’s like to be a human, including suffering the most humiliating death possible. In that regard, not only the Bible narrative is a preparation of His arrival, but the New Testament has to be understood as a collection of writings about what Jesus said and did.

With that in mind, it is one thing to reaffirm teachings that Jesus himself, as reported by the books in the New Testament, explicitly approved (such as traditional Jewish morality as included in the 10 commandments) quite another to “make up” stuff to justify the Inquisition or slavery. Nowhere in the New Testament I see Jesus condoning the Inquisition (the notion that people who disagree with Him need to be excommunicated and burned alive) or slavery. What Lutherans call “the two kingdom doctrine” is not an approval of any form of oppressive government, rather, a reminder that the spiritual kingdom is bigger than the things we see in this world.

So, people who ignore Jesus teachings do it at their own peril. If you think about it, Europe is a perfect example of every single form of refusal of the gospel: from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to totalitarian regimes to now the adoption of so called “60s morality”. In each case there was a backlash. The backlash of the Inquisition was the Protestant Reformation. The backlash of some Lutherans in Germany to take the two kingdom theory to the extreme was Nazi Germany. The backlash of the 60s morality is being, as we speak, the demographic implosion of Europe.

100 years from now there will be people in what we currently call “Europe”, it just won’t be the same type of civilization because current Europeans have been taking themselves out of the demographic equation for several decades now. At this point the process is quite irreversible even if Europeans set themselves to have 5 children per family (something that will not happen because their soul is right now very polluted with the sin of pride).

 

[protestantinca]

In fact it goes on to say:
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

Boy, I guess that means I will burn in hell, since I know what the Catholic Church teaches in that regard and I still have decided to remain Lutheran .

That’s why I believe that the Bible is supreme. Galatians 2 or 1st Corinthians 15 do not make any mention of membership in any human institution as being necessary for salvation.

 

[clem456]

In any case, we are not called to desire the dying off of others, we are called to desire them to have abundant life.

The death of others is never the way to abundant life. It doesn’t matter whether that death is inflicted (God forbid) or self inflicted (God forbid also).

That being said, morality points us to the good of life. Sexual morality in particular points us the true good of human beings, in the first place, the call to exist.
An immoral culture will have a difficult time forming and nurturing solid families, and those cultures that have crumbling families will unfortunately fade away. Christian cultures are declining in the west.

 

[clem456]

Boy, I guess that means I will burn in hell, since I know what the Catholic Church teaches in that regard and I still have decided to remain Lutheran .

That’s why I believe that the Bible is supreme. Galatians 2 or 1st Corinthians 15 do not make any mention of membership in any human institution as being necessary for salvation.

Maybe another thread is appropriate, but lemme ask you a question since the topic is on the table.

When you say the bible does not propose any human institution as necessary for salvation, I have to wonder, where does Jesus Christ fit into your faith?

Who do you think Christ is? What is his nature?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Boy, I guess that means I will burn in hell, since I know what the Catholic Church teaches in that regard and I still have decided to remain Lutheran .

That’s why I believe that the Bible is supreme. Galatians 2 or 1st Corinthians 15 do not make any mention of membership in any human institution as being necessary for salvation.

I would recommend researching the early church fathers, as well as church history and the rest of scripture. Also, 1 Timothy 3:15 specifically refers to the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Look up “sola scriptura” in the catholic.com website. There is a wealth of resources on the subject including bible verses.

 

[protestantinca]

I would recommend researching the early church fathers, as well as church history and the rest of scripture. Also, 1 Timothy 3:15 specifically refers to the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Look up “sola scriptura” in the catholic.com website. There is a wealth of resources on the subject including bible verses.

Answering to clem456 as well.

I have looked at the history of Early Christianity as reported by both the New Testament and outside sources. What I see is not a “single human institution” created by Christ and headed by Peter but a collection of autonomous churches. Galatians 2 tells us that Paul corrected Peter on fundamental faith matters.

As you probably know, non Catholics (Protestant and Orthodox alike) interpret Matthew 16:18 in a very different way compared to Catholics.

The “church”, that we non Catholics refer to as the body of all Christian believers, was founded by Christ on Matthew 16:16 “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. The oldest manuscripts - in Ancient Greek- make a distinction between female “Petra” (the truth of Matthew 16:16) and male “Petros” (Peter).

Then shortly after that dialog, on Matthew 16:21-23 we have the following dialog in which Christ Himself rebukes His “alleged” Vicar,
Holy Bible Matthew 16:21-23:

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” "

The first schism Catholic / Orthodox was caused precisely because the head of Rome sought to break the underlying agreement that there wasn’t a single human in Christendom that could call himself “Vicar of Christ”.

 

[HelenRose]

Good Evening Protestantinca: It is a curious thing to see human beings profess a desire to see other human beings wiped out of existence because of their moral standards, when in fact the moral standards of those who would wish such things on others seem to warrant some serious examination. It seems to me that if God was of reasonable intelligence and your ideas on morality were the proper template to apply as an overlay to the conduct of human affairs, God needed only to make you and people who think like you. Buy we know that’s not what happened, and God probably does possess a reasonable level of intellect, and therefore the reasons for the diversity among humankind are probably not an intellectually heavy lift to comprehend.

This is just my opinion of course, but I am open to some discussion on the matter.

All the best,
Gary

I think “wiped out” was a unfortunate expression in what she meant. It is more a matter of evolution. It is possible that even ideas are subject to the “Survival of the Fittest.” It could be that a certain population of people that do not have children, abort or neglect children will,by the process of “Survival of the Fittest”, simply die off.
Where as a certain population of people who do have children and don’t abort children will have the necessary genes to populate the world. One thing is for certain. The future belongs to the children whose parents had kids. These are the people who will have survived.

 

[protestantinca]

I think “wiped out” was a unfortunate expression in what she meant. It is more a matter of evolution. It is possible that even ideas are subject to the “Survival of the Fittest.” It could be that a certain population of people that do not have children, abort or neglect children will,by the process of “Survival of the Fittest”, simply die off.
Where as a certain population of people who do have children and don’t abort children will have the necessary genes to populate the world. One thing is for certain. The future belongs to the children whose parents had kids. These are the people who will have survived.

I always saw Gary’s focus on my using the “wiped out” expression as a semantic red herring. It is interesting that he is the only one who interpreted that expression in a different way you and others did.

Hopefully now there is no misunderstanding: adopting “60s type of morals” has consequences on the survival of the group of people that adopts them. I see this as further vindication that the 10 commandments and traditional Jewish sexual morality are not optional. As it happens with civilian laws, ignoring God’s Law has consequences.

 

[Thorolfr]

I saw the other thread about PC USA having voted to approve gay marriage. It bears reminding that the record in terms of membership and attendance of other churches that have done the same is pretty consistent,

thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/

It seems that deviating from Galatians 5:19-20 is paid dearly by those denominations that attempt to reconcile the morals of the 60s’ sexual revolution with Christianity.

I really don’t think that this argument is very convincing since many churches, both liberal ones and conservative ones are declining. From 2012 to 2013, the number of baptized members of the LCMS declined by 1.51% from 2,196,788 to 2,163,698. From 2012 to 2013, the number of baptized members of the ELCA declined by 2.22% from 3,950,924 to 3,863,133. That is certainly a slightly larger decline in the ELCA, but it’s not as if the more conservative LCMS is not also declining and is growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From protestantinca:

I always saw Gary’s focus on my using the “wiped out” expression as a semantic red herring. It is interesting that he is the only one who interpreted that expression in a different way you and others did.

Good evening protestantinca: I don’t think I misunderstood what you said, although you may have not understood what you were saying. The dictionary defines the term when used as a phrasal verb as you did to mean:

1. To destroy or be destroyed completely.
2. Slang To murder.

There’s no red herring about it. If it’s not what you meant, then it is simply up to you to say so, since you said it. We just need to be clear about what we are saying. And it is quite possible that the only reason I was the one to catch the use of the term was that I was perhaps the only one paying any attention to you.

All the best,
Gary

 

[JRRTFAN]

I saw the other thread about PC USA having voted to approve gay marriage. It bears reminding that the record in terms of membership and attendance of other churches that have done the same is pretty consistent,

thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/

It seems that deviating from Galatians 5:19-20 is paid dearly by those denominations that attempt to reconcile the morals of the 60s’ sexual revolution with Christianity.

Outside Christianity we see the same phenomenon in Muslim and Asian communities. Those who have so called “traditional values” are more fertile and less dysfunctional than those that adopt, for lack of a better word, 60s’ type of morality.

PC-USA has been nominal on abortion for its entire history. “Gee it’s a shame, but if you gotta do it, you gotta do it. Don’t worry, your saved regardless.” It has never been a viable Christian body.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

CompSciGuyThe reason why, as you move up the chain, this approach becomes less prevalent is because more advanced species are more capable of killing other species and defending themselves.

                                                                    +

Even those unsophisticated swarms of insects have been known to take out entire human populations by the destruction of their crops.

                                                                    =

Something of a contradiction doesn’t it?

I would also point out if I may that less complex organisms use less sophisticated means of propagation for three reasons mainly:

-Simple strategies are all simple organisms are capable of. I don’t need to list more, but I will:

-Less complex organisms are highly specialized and less adaptive to changes in environment.

-Simple organisms have shorter lifespans.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From: Protestantinca

With that in mind, it is one thing to reaffirm teachings that Jesus himself, as reported by the books in the New Testament, explicitly approved (such as traditional Jewish morality as included in the 10 commandments) quite another to “make up” stuff to justify the Inquisition or slavery. Nowhere in the New Testament I see Jesus condoning the Inquisition (the notion that people who disagree with Him need to be excommunicated and burned alive) or slavery. What Lutherans call “the two kingdom doctrine” is not an approval of any form of oppressive government, rather, a reminder that the spiritual kingdom is bigger than the things we see in this world.

Good Evening Protestantinca:

I’m not sure that I’m following your line of thinking. On the one hand you are saying that Jesus supported the laws in the Old Testament ,and on the other you are saying that using those laws to enslave or kill people involved some sort of fabrication on the part of the people who have cited those laws to commit these atrocities. Slavery and the execution of adulterers and disobedient children are most certainly in full accordance with the laws that are found in the Old Testament.

So, people who ignore Jesus teachings do it at their own peril. If you think about it, Europe is a perfect example of every single form of refusal of the gospel: from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to totalitarian regimes to now the adoption of so called “60s morality”. In each case there was a backlash. The backlash of the Inquisition was the Protestant Reformation. The backlash of some Lutherans in Germany to take the two kingdom theory to the extreme was Nazi Germany. The backlash of the 60s morality is being, as we speak, the demographic implosion of Europe.

100 years from now there will be people in what we currently call “Europe”, it just won’t be the same type of civilization because current Europeans have been taking themselves out of the demographic equation for several decades now. At this point the process is quite irreversible even if Europeans set themselves to have 5 children per family (something that will not happen because their soul is right now very polluted with the sin of pride).

What is your prescribed European family size to address the issues that are troubling you in the paragraph above? Also, could you define what your idea of a 60’s morality is? What time in history is the model we’re trying to aim for here?

All the best,
Gary

 

[BobCatholic]

It seems that deviating from Galatians 5:19-20 is paid dearly by those denominations that attempt to reconcile the morals of the 60s’ sexual revolution with Christianity.

I think it is fair to start calling the 1960’s Sexual Revolution what it is: A new religion.

I call it the Pelvic Religion. They worship the pelvis and have it as their supreme authority.

And I suspect it will become the One World Religion.

The followers of the Pelvic Religion would contracept, homosexualize, abort and euthanize themselves out of existence…but they want to use the government to impose their religulous anti-values on others.

 

[protestantinca]

Good evening protestantinca: I don’t think I misunderstood what you said, although you may have not understood what you were saying. The dictionary defines the term when used as a phrasal verb as you did to mean:

1. To destroy or be destroyed completely.
2. Slang To murder.

There’s no red herring about it. If it’s not what you meant, then it is simply up to you to say so, since you said it. We just need to be clear about what we are saying. And it is quite possible that the only reason I was the one to catch the use of the term was that I was perhaps the only one paying any attention to you.

All the best,
Gary

Given that resorting to a dictionary definition to defend one’s position is one of the oldest tricks in the sophist’s arsenal and that you are the only one that apparently misunderstood what I meant, I don’t think I have anything to retract. What I meant was very clear to everyone who replied except for you.

 

[protestantinca]

I’m not sure that I’m following your line of thinking. On the one hand you are saying that Jesus supported the laws in the Old Testament ,and on the other you are saying that using those laws to enslave or kill people involved some sort of fabrication on the part of the people who have cited those laws to commit these atrocities. Slavery and the execution of adulterers and disobedient children are most certainly in full accordance with the laws that are found in the Old Testament.

What is your prescribed European family size to address the issues that are troubling you in the paragraph above? Also, could you define what your idea of a 60’s morality is? What time in history is the model we’re trying to aim for here?

All the best,
Gary

And I am not surprised that you don’t given your last attempt a pulling off a straw man. So, if somebody else is not clear by what I meant, I will elaborate. Until then, my position is that you are either a bad debater or an expert in sophistry, neither of which I find interesting.

 

[protestantinca]

I think it is fair to start calling the 1960’s Sexual Revolution what it is: A new religion.

I call it the Pelvic Religion. They worship the pelvis and have it as their supreme authority.

And I suspect it will become the One World Religion.

The followers of the Pelvic Religion would contracept, homosexualize, abort and euthanize themselves out of existence…but they want to use the government to impose their religulous anti-values on others.

To be sure it is a belief system. However, it is a belief system that leads to implosion. And the fact is that there is plenty of historical precedent as to how the end is going to look like.

One of the greatest fears of the Founding Fathers, believe it or not, was precisely this. There is a book that speaks of this, amazon.com/When-Nations-Die-Warning-Culture/dp/0842380051 . It was written 20 years ago, it is unbelievable how relevant continues to be today. All the indicators have gotten arguably worse. We spend more in wars, we have worse rates of government corruption, we have higher levels of alienation among politicians, and our morals have never been worse with the approval of gay marriage.

 

[Matthew_Light]

A key (I would even say “the key”) teaching of Christianity is that Jesus’ message was the absolute final revelation.

Where is that passage in the Bible?

 

[protestantinca]

Where is that passage in the Bible?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P135.HTM

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!
"

Those are the last words of the Bible in the canon accepted by Protestants, Catholics and even Orthodox (although the Orthodox do not read it in their services).

 

[BobCatholic]

Where is that passage in the Bible?

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all,
In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.