Posted on 12/27/2011 5:21:08 AM PST by rhema
The ongoing imbroglio with Denver Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow has made plain three really unflattering facts about the secular-progressive ("sec-prog") movement in this country. Tebow's straightforward and unapologetic Christianity has been received by NFL mensae magnae (contradiction in terms?) as a type of threat. These folks have responded by building upon the previously gathered strength of the anti-Christian movement in this nation. Such a movement, by the way, is far more prevalent than it formerly appeared.
First truth: the sec-progs have meatier game in sight than we used to think. That is, when sec-progs start out declaring that they aim merely to set a plain whereupon all religions can fairly "coexist," they really contemplate an end-game where religions fade permanently out of view. Have a look at the emergent history of the jurisprudence: "No federal religion" became "no state religions"; this became "no government entanglement with religion"; this became "no governmental support for religion"; this became "no governmental mention of religion"; this led to the phase that the Tebow debacle currently evinces: "no popular mention of religion in any public sphere, including private affairs which get viewed on TV." One can easily imagine the last few steps in this phenomenology of disappearance.
Coming back to Tebow, let's remember that his comparatively subtle iconographic decorum has managed to stir up the hornets' nest to a startling degree: recent betrayals by active (Lions players Stephen Tulloch and Tony Scheffler) and especially retired (Merrill Hodge and Jake Plummer) players lack all response-to-stimulus proportionality and sound more like personal defensive responses to some governmental actor threatening the players' own religious liberty. That is, all such ugliness over Tebow taking to his own knee in thanks, or occasionally mentioning the J-word after a game, exposes a fetid, rotten sort of secularism at the heart of
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The english word church comes from a German word that means building.. sometimes morphed into congregation/gathering..
The word “church” is not in the bible... anywhere..
The word has evolved from denominational dogma..
“Ekklesia” is morphed to mean church... it does not mean that..
You ignore your own illogic with incorrect interpretation, which is really irrelevant to your main point of view.
First was Christ, second Christ’s Church which incorporates Him...if not for His Church, you have no Scripture to read.
You see whether or not ekklesia is Greek or Aramaic means Church, or congregation or assembly is not important.
The contextual literalness of Christ’s sending out the Apostles and Disciples leads to Christ’s Church...and without that Church, you have no Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to read with any certainty that they are the inspired Word of God.
So it seems you worship “the Church”.. any attack on your view of what the church “is” is an attack on your spirituality.. I have noticed this with many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Mormons and others..
You must believe what you see.. I do not.. We all see what we see..
So I do not oppose you believing that..
You may not agree with my use of the word “worship”.. as we do not agree on use of others words.. I suspect there are many words we translate differently.. Same with democrats they see things completely differently than I do.. same thing really.. Could be the situation with many people..
Human life is indeed a “test”... some gravitate to fleshly views others gravitate to spiritual views.. I suspect thats the way it is supposed to be.. God is a genius.. We choose our own poisons.. He don’t choose them we do..
I see churchs as half-way houses or drunk tanks used to sober up those drunk on the things of this world.. When they sober up.. “the church” kicks them out or seems silly to them and they leave.... Whats not to like..
You misinterpret due to different definitions of Church.
I noticed you ignored that you can’t have Scripture without the Church...It is illogical, beyond reason.
Do you belive that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified and arose again after 3 days?
[ I noticed you ignored that you can’t have Scripture without the Church...It is illogical, beyond reason. ]
Jesus did not say “read scripture” he said “go to the Holy Spirit and ask for knowledge”..
Most people don’t do that they read scripture, instead..
The Holy Spirit is not a doofus ordered around by priests..
“Jesus did not say “read scripture” he said “go to the Holy Spirit and ask for knowledge”..”
Yet you use your incorrect interpretations of Scripture to critique Christians who egads....worship in a church...lol.
You didn’t answer the question:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died, only to rise again after 3 days?
of course....
Glad to hear that.
http://whyismarko.com/2011/27-worst-nativity-sets-the-annual-growing-list/
Well, I hope you enjoy the season, and happy Epiphany.
Actually, you do have scripture without the Church.
When new testament apostles (or their scribes, I leave the difference to rigorous theologians) wrote about scripture, they didn’t mean the scripture that would someday be a synopsis of their teaching, and eventually accepted by the Church (or by the Roman Empire, which took over the Church fairly quickly). Rather they meant the Old Testament, and either the Septuagint(LXX) texts that we see most quoted in the New Testament, or the Hebrew texts that were copied and available in Synagogues.
Point is, (Jewish) Scripture predates the Church. Christianity was a heresy of Judaism, just as Judaism was a heresy of previous religions. The reason why a particular heresy is convincing to people may be the occurrence or claim of miracles, or merely better marketing.
Christians in the early church seem to have q uickly adopted the codex, a ‘random access memory device’, which gives faster access to a desired text than a ‘sequential access memory device’ such as a scroll of the Torah, or similar scrolls of the Greco-Roman priests, aside from not needing as much recopying.
Parchment scrolls rub as they are wound, and unwound, degrading the text. A codex does not rub, and with proper care, well, we have some today that are over 1000 years old (not all that time was constant use).
Fact is, the Divine doesn’t use email or twitter (that I know of); therefore all we know of the Divine will is in various documents, in the traditions we are taught, what we derive from experience in history and prayer, and the possibility of direct revelation (for Mormons and others who hold that direct revelation continues).
I know what you mean, but I think C. S. Lewis was right when he said, "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.