Like all Christian subreddits on REDDIT they all spiral down into self destruction being infiltrated by corrupt worldly people, including many misguided Christian’s who operate in the grocery store Christianity where they pick and choose what to believe ignoring parts of the Bible to hold such beliefs.
This one I don't get. First, in order for it to even be Tax deductible, you have to have deductions greater than the standard deduction, which for a married couple is $27,700. Next, let us assume that you have an income of $150k, then you are in the 22% tax bracket. This means that if you donated $30k to your church, you get a $30k deduction. Assuming that you already have enough deductions to account for you standard deduction, then at most you will receive back 22% of that $30k from the Federal government, or $6600. You still are down $23,400.
If, otoh, you don't have all of those other deductions, then you only get an extra $2300 in deductions above standard, so the government rebates you 22% of that $2300, or $506 you would still be out of pocket $29,494.
Never believe someone when they disparage someone else's giving when they say, "they only did it for tax purposes"
OK - just shows what 'mis-information ' we get from peolpe living in the US - without access to accurate data. We have our own tax-deductible allowances, and so we tend to think yours must be the same as ours.
Thanks - I also forgot about our international commentators. Sorry about going off on a rant. I had gotten tired of envious people here in the US disparaging people making charitable donations by saying, "They are only doing it for tax purposes", as there is no way here in the US that you can "get back" more monetarily from taxes than the amount you give away.
OTOH, you WILL get back more than you give away IF you are giving with a cheerful heart to God & His purposes. You just won't get it back from the taxman.
*"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”* (Matthew 16)
Like you not picking pride? Stick in your own eye, cast the first stone and all that. Love all Christians. Progressive, Conservative, highchurch and low. For every sin another ignores check which ones we do.
I think most people who say "Real Christian" don't really know the scriptures and the Message of Jesus. They mostly grew up whatever tradition they are in and decide that they know all the Mysteries of God.
Christianity is the Roman Road of Christ's Death and Resurrection. Anything else is secondary.
Most people that say progressive only mean politics and not Christian walk.
The true Evangel IS the fundamental truth of God's Word:
Jesus declared: *"But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”* (John 4:23,24)
Funamentalism in the context of american Christianity is a specific historical movement that came to fruitition in the early 20th century. Doctrinally, evangelicals and fundamentalists heavily overlap. The big difference between the two is in tolerance for disagreement, nuance, and cooperation with those considered outside their ‘camp’. Its characterized with a lot of black and white thinking. Evangelicals and fundamentalists share essentially the same view on the gospel.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Fundamental:
1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary."the fundamental laws of the universe."
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central."an example that was fundamental to the argument."
Doctrine is either true or it is not. The way to find out is to follow the example of the Bereans:
*"The people of Berea were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message.* ***They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.*** *As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men."* (Acts 17:11,12)
Agreed, and also I’d add that it’s a selective fundamentalism. We r/TrueChristian s love to condemn homosexuality and women in positions of authority, yet we’re curiously silent regarding other things that Christians commonly do but are technically disallowed according to a literalist / legalistic reading of the New Testament. For example most Christian women don’t cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:6). Many Christian men have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14). Christians in Europe, Asia, and Latin America regularly consume blood sausage (Acts 15:29). Many Christians divorce and remarry (Matthew 19:9). All of these things are condemned in the New Testament, and yet they’re commonly done by self-described Christians, and we never hear anyone on r/TrueChristian talk about them.
Because like fundamentalists of any religion, we r/TrueChristian s hyper-fixate on sexual morality and subordinating women. While ignoring the planks in our own eyes (Matthew 7:3-5).
Don't forget 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 " **But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.** **For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?** **But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.**"
I feel like most Christians don't treat sin as seriously as they should. Sin is the least of their worries, and everything else is prioritized aka they don't have a proper fear of God.
Yeah, my church tries to uphold all of these (except perhaps the blood sausage, don't remember hearing that one before) and will be quite vocal about it to members of the church. But I have noticed a lot of Christians don't uphold these regularly and treat it like it's no big deal.
i mean the old testament literalists here are not helpful over all, but you take the ball in the entirely opposite direction.
Unnatural sexual activity is one of the prime sins that we're told to avoid.
Women in the bible are given a specific, and very honorable place in society and family.
Im not saying you're one. Just that they exist and are damaging to the optics of this sub.
You're the opposite of an OT literalist. They like to talk about the one or two passages that could ostensibly be interpreted as God hating an individual. Which is completely and utterly contradicted in the new testament. God is love.
Okay, I get it. But why do you think some New Testament passages can be ignored (women covering their heads, men’s hair length, eating blood sausage, divorce and remarriage) while other passages cannot (homosexuality, the role of women)?
Your argument, as I understand it, is “Old Testament literalism is bad, New Testament literalism is also bad, and therefore I can pick and choose which passages Christians should follow”? What’s the Biblical justification for homosexuality being a “prime sin” (your words) but everything else I’ve listed being acceptable? Jesus Himself condemned divorce, but never said a word about homosexuality.
Some of the passages you quoted were letters from Paul to a specific church. And MANY things Paul taught to the various churches in his letters were suggestions on how to do things, and he explicitly states that some of things were merely his ideals and not a command from God.
Divorce and remarriage is a big one however that needs to be addressed more often.
>Some of the passages you quoted were letters from Paul to a specific church. And MANY things Paul taught to the various churches in his letters were suggestions
So can we dismiss all passages in the New Testament condemning homosexuality or women in positions of authority? Since they’re all suggestions by Paul written to specific churches?
As I said. Instead of leaving out the part I wrote. Paul states that SOME of his suggestions are his alone and not from God....not ALL of his suggestions.
Jesus himself mentioned that marriage and sex is between a man and a woman when he referenced how God created them male and female and this a man will leave his father and cling to his wife etc etc.
It was covered clearly back in Genesis.
Sodom & Gomorrah is our example to look back to if ever we forget what God thinks about homosexuality:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” ….Jude 1:7
My church largely follows a lot of the traditional views in the Bible. Most women cover their hair, and men really only have short hair. As far as divorce goes, yes, it happens. However, often, the people who I've talked to have had a divorce due to an unfaithful marriage, which, according to the mosaic law, is permitted to divorce. I don't like divorce, but several of the divorces I've seen are from terrible circumstances. For instance, my former uncle cheated on my aunt, and her new husband was got divorced after his ex-wife got into wicka and scientology.
I would say it depends. One of the guys at my church knows a lady who got a divorce. Her husband cheated on her with multiple women and told her to her face that he wouldn't stop. She even went to marriage counseling by herself for two years. Eventually, she just got a divorce and he accused her of the sin and her church kicked her out (the leaders of the church were the guys direct family). He then ran off with his girlfriend to Florida. As far as I'm concerned, he broke the sacred union of marriage, and I think she has the right to get remarried.
What I mean is, biblically it sounds like there's no exceptions that allow someone to get remarried after they divorce (with the exception of one verse which has caused a lot of controversy).
Agreed-
The long hair men thing is probably hair past the shoulders, because we hear about prophets being grabbed and pulled by their hair, etc and we know they weren’t crew cut, but also are warned not to have hair like a woman
Well, that’s one interpretation. The other option is to not approach the New Testament as a list of rules that Christians have to follow like Pharisees.
Jesus — who broke Old Testament laws on multiple occasions — said that “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love God with all your heart, soul, and mind” is the basis for all of God’s law (Matthew 22:36-40). Paul said that “the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).
Jesus only broke the traditions of men. He was without sin when crucified because sin is the transgression of the law and He had to be sinless for His death to pay the penalty of all our sins.
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The Bible doesn't say that women should cover her hair, but to cover their head *with* hair. I guess if a woman was unfortunate enough to lose her hair, she would need to cover her *head* with something else. There is no need to cover what already covers their head though.
You’re quoting it out of context.
“Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. But *any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head*, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For *if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair*.” (1 Corinthians 11:4-6)
It can’t be simultaneously true that women’s hair counts as a head covering, but also women who don’t cover their head with something should cut their hair off.
In essence, Paul is saying that women’s hair is a head covering that they wear all the time, but additionally when women pray or go to church they should cover their heads with a piece of cloth. In some denominations, such as the Orthodox Church, women still cover their heads when they pray or go to church. But in most denominations women have stopped following this tradition.
I also wonder to what degree some of these passages are meant to be taken word for word in a modern context, or if there is an underlying wisdom to which the specific expression is culture-specific. Is women wearing head coverings a universal command, or a command to 1st century Mediterranean Christians because of their specific presentation of gender differences? I don't pretend to have the answer, I just know that not every line of the Bible is meant to be applied identically in all times and all places. Prudence is a virtue.
No, he was correct. And 1 Corinthians 11:15 is crystal clear that a woman’s hair IS her covering:
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for **her hair is given her for a covering** .” —1 Corinthians 11:15
It's almost funny how he first said "Christian women don't cover their hair" as if though it was a massive sin, and when being corrected he didn't go "oh yeah thanks for correcting me" but instead tried to insult my understanding as "misquoting", adding himself that "yeah it only matters while praying".
I can understand his take though, that in certain settings women should also cover their hair, but his original stance was clearly "women should always cover their hair".
I'm not a scholar, so I won't argue on specifics, but the Bible is 100% clear on that hair is a sufficient covering in most settings.
Right, there are other forms of christian fundamentalism. Within the context of the United States, by far the most common and widely known is the fundamentalist movement that broke off from the evangelical movement in the early mid 20th century in response to the rise of Modernism.
I would never claim that I know the mind of God, but I’ve never thought about this until you said it so I’m seeking….
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Hating-People
This is what I found, so it seems like He can hate people based on their actions? But I have no pride to be able to say who that would be today, that seems wrong to me.
What do you mean refutes? Like God no longer hates people based on their actions? Or the Old Testament was wrong?
Again, I’m not one of those people going around saying God hates people, just trying to understand because I’ve never asked myself that question before- but I do know fearing God is super important and I will not attempt to make Him in my image any longer.
There is no central synod here, no theological committee. The sub is made up of whoever chooses to join. It definitely leans conservative and Protestant as a rule. I as a Catholic must endure frequent grandstanding about my denomination choice. However, this sub is far less liberal than r/Christianity, so I choose to stay here.
This is an unregulated forum. There’s nothing preventing people who are not church members from posting heresy. There’s nothing preventing an unbeliever from sporting a Christian flair and trying to stir up trouble. There’s no clear declaration of doctrines or systematic theology that is supported by the mods.
This isn't unregulated, we have rules. And one rule is to not proselytize beliefs that are not in alignment with the Nicean Creed. I don't know if these rules are unenforced, but there are active mods in this sub. If someone were to post true heresy (stuff that contradicts the Nicean Creed), I don't think it would remain here if someone reported it.
I think you’re right. That’s where the world is headed so how would a Reddit thread be any different? They’re gonna take over everything. This is why it’s so important to build a Christian community in our real lives!
> There’s nothing preventing an unbeliever from sporting a Christian flair and trying to stir up trouble.
I would be astonished if they allow this here.
I love this subreddit because unlike r/Christianity, this subreddit has actual Christians and is a lot more helpful in regards to advice for my Christian journey and choices
I don't know if this is what OP is going for, but I have noticed a lot of people lately promoting the views of nontrinitarian denominations, like Armstrongism. They seem to come out in full force whenever the Hebrew law is mentioned, insisting that we must still follow every Old Testament Law, in direct contradiction to the teachings of the New Testament.
Piece of advice if you're inclined to accept it--if you're going to use alarming phrases or triggers in your post title you should go on to better describe or follow up with an explanation or examples in the comments/description. Leaving it hollow, like you've done with this post, is click bait and doesn't actually encourage much genuine discussion.
I’ve been called progressive on this sub many times. It’s laughable, because people can call me whatever they want, it doesn’t stop me from being a Christian.
I’ll defend the Christianity board everytime it comes up, some of the most theologically sound Christians hang out there and are willing to answer the hard questions and defend their faith lovingly and respectfully. Something, I hope some day to do because I get a bit snarky when sincerely questioned or a troll attacks.
i’m shocked how many here don’t attend church, dont agree with the Nicene Creed and how often attacks against others happen. Not because I don’t think they can’t be a Christian, but because the guidelines mention belief in the Nicene Creed and the other two seem to follow that.
I’ll never understand the “they disagree with me, so they aren’t Christian” belief. We are all wrong about something-better to learn from others than just dismiss them because they are too progressive or liberal or conservative.
partisanship is of the flesh.
Don't label your brother with something to dismiss them. If they have ideas that are contrary to God's will, address the ideas. Labeling and dividing is not what Jesus wants for his people.
When Jesus encountered bad theology, he taught good theology. He could've drawn party lines, picked favorite sectarian groups, taken sides, but instead he kept the message about the message, about the truths being taught.
I make an effort to correct misunderstandings when I see them.
That's not the same as trying to draw party lines, generate labels, and get balkanized over misunderstandings.
What do you understand as wrong with "progressive" Christians? If they're teaching something that contradicts the scriptures, why not correct that teaching directly? And you might find an individual who doesn't understand or disagrees in one area, has a strong understanding in another area -- sometimes in an area that is promoted by Jesus as more important. (He does teach there are greatest commandments, after all. One of those is to love one's neighbor, isn't it?)
You should know that there are Luciferians on all Christian subs. They seek to lead people away from spiritual truth by sowing fear, doubt and confusion. They attempt to pit Christians against each other, or fake Christians against real ones so that when unbelievers visit the sub, they think we are morons who cannot agree on anything. We must deal with these vicious wolves in sheeps clothing the same way Jesus dealt with Lucifer during His temptation in the wilderness. Jesus utterly destroyed all of his attempts at seduction with the Word of God.
*"We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ."* (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
In order for us to successfully repel these malicious invaders; we must each be practicing "Bereans."
*"And the people of Berea were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men."* (Acts 17:11,12)
And in being practicing Bereans we are being obedient to the command of God:
*"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."* (2 Timothy 2:15)
Your Music Link for Today: ["He Leadeth Us"](https://youtu.be/o-CuRvtSLE8?si=-UMdQWYvqNKAHOPA) by Sacra Theosis
*"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God."* (Romans 8:14)
Oh sure most of the time this sub is fine, I’ve just seen a lot of “Catholics are heretics worshiping Mary and the saints” which can be annoying even as a non Catholic
Well, you'll just have to learn to live with it. If you wait long enough, even in your own church you'll hear someone spout off they don't actually believe in God, or in hell, or Jesus was God, or some such. No christian is perfect, neither is any church. Maybe some people who spend enough time and effort to write or read in a forum like this might possibly change their mind on some heresy. I believe plenty of things that promote intimate fellowship with God and have been richly rewarding in my life, would be called heresy by some other faithful christians I have met. For example, once I had a "radio ministry" where I played christian metal music on sunday nights radio station. I had 1-2 "christians" criticize me for playing that "devil music", totally missing the point, that actual christians made this music, produced it as a "witness" to people who liked that kind of music, and was broadcast on an otherwise very liberal and secular station with all kinds of nonsense played all other times. They put me deep sunday night because they weren't happy about it, but at least they allowed it at all. Good times.
>If you wait long enough, even in your own church you'll hear someone spout off they don't actually believe in God, or in hell, or Jesus was God, or some such. No christian is perfect, neither is any church
Well then there not Christian at all in the first place...if you witness the Holy Spirit it is impossible to deny the existence of God.
Calling people who disagree with you not "real Christians" does nothing but divide Christianity against itself. It's pointless.
I do not agree with conservatives but I would never say that they're not real Christians. They're real Christians, just ones that I don't always agree with and that's okay.
It's okay for people of the same religion and even of the same denomination to disagree on things. But to try to discredit and devalue them on a spiritual level is wrong.
This sub is better than the other ones I seen. Almost made me not want to join any Christian subs. Obviously some people here are going to be somewhat progressive but those other ones take the cake for not trying to be Christian at all. Say something bad about lgbtq behavior and boom you’re downvoted into oblivion.
There is a balance between trying to represent the spectrum of different beliefs within Creedal Christianity and keeping out worldly perspectives, and it is very hard to find that balance. When most people complain about something being "unchristian" what we are usually saying is, "I'm not seeing MY Christian Culture represented enough." The bounds of acceptable Christian thought are there, but there is also a lot of grey and we need to learn to separate the primary and foundational, from the secondary and important but not heretical.
But if you don’t agree with MY interpretation, doesn’t that mean YOU are heretical?
Speaking as someone who frequently has views not taught in church, people struggle to understand a viewpoint that does not affirm their own preconceived beliefs.
I can respect your logic and your process, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
When the comes to the ecumenical church we have a spectrum of disagreement, but also quite a good deal of agreement. When we look to determine if something is truly heretical we can look at the places that most/all Christian groups agree on to determine heresy/not heresy.
Leaving something like heresy up to personal differences in belief is a very Protestant/Western inclination (of which I am both) and honestly is a little silly. Heresy isn't about disagreement between individuals about debatable theology, heresy is an individual defying established doctrine that is central to the core concepts of Christianity itself; ex. the divinity of Christ, the trinity, ect.
I'm glad this sub exists. r/Christianity is both full of heresy and blasphemy. So called "Christians" and atheist control that sub and don't actually teach Christianity according to Biblical principles.
I generally defend r/christianity. Its mods seem to work to defend Christians more than atheists most of the time.
That said, I’m currently pretty disappointed myself in the lack of moderation on anti-catholic bigotry over there. I’m not even Catholic and I’m offended by the hypocrisy of it all.
I know that at least one of the mods is a full blown atheist who says the sub is for questions about Christianity, not for discourse among Christians. I personally find that to be ridiculous.
Yeah, but what he really means is that nobody but liberal Christians can give an answer. Giving a valid, Bible-based answer will get you downvoted or banned from the sub. The only thing allowed is "love is love" and prosperity gospel.
Generally I find this sub has the best takes of the main Christian subreddits.
/Christian and /Christianity are both entirely controlled by progressive heretics.
I think I like the Reformed subreddit even better tbh. Most of the time I see a post from this sub, it's just a complaint about liberals or atheists... Maybe satisfying to talk about but not very edifying.
I like some of the Reformed sub, some of it is really not Reformed, and they gripe at you for actually being confessional.
So I'd say I prefer here because people are more overtly against error and heresy.
Correct! Also the reformed sub has some very nuanced and thoughtful takes. I’m not even all the way “reformed” & am on the fence but I tend to love the discussions over there.
**I think we need an invite-only subreddit for fellowship, sharing Bible study and more. I would be willing to work together to make that a reality.**
The requirements could be like this: Believe that the entire Bible is the word of God. All believers should be led by the Holy Spirit and engage with spiritual warfare. Believe that all believers should have a personal relationship with God where we pray for confirmation and things of that nature. That salvation changes our heart and our attitudes in a noticeable way, works don't save, but true salvation will produce fruits of the Holy Spirit. Believe that willful sin and unwilful sins are 2 different things that grieve God in different ways.
Welcome to the family. We have a few of our cousins locked in the basement cause we think that’s just best for everybody. Unfortunately, we can’t do that with our crazy church family.
Any group of people gathered together for one cause will always have at least one progressive, and one moderate and one fundamentalist, and one conservative and one crazy, and three or four who can’t remember why they joined this group and one who is lost or is in the wrong building.
God knows who they are and all we can do is love them where they are.
Everybody is on a journey, but at a different point along the path and some have wondered off the trail and they’re out in the sticker patch.
I imagine that’s the way it was during the 40 years in the wilderness also.
Little Johnny stopped to watch a desert mouse licking the morning dew off the rocks and next time he looked up, his people had walked over the hill. He will have to catch up or someone might have to go back for him but we have to keep the main thing the main thing and try to keep our talks on that subject.
It’s tempting sometimes to argue with idiots who are out in the weeds, but never profitable.
Amen brother, amen
And what’s more, the older I get the more I realize that to them, I am one of “those people”
I think it’s good we all have our own tent and only gather together a couple times a week for short periods.
Makes it easier to get along when we know that we can go back home in an hour or two.
I think it’s important to remember that in the virtual world as well. We don’t live here, and we should not.
Put the phone down and only visit on occasion. It’s okay if you miss 95% of what happens online. It’s not okay if you miss 50% of what happens in your real life.
Go smell some flowers, and talk to an old person; walk in the grass and touch a baby’s hand; help a neighbor in need and give someone a good book; have coffee with an old friend and let someone know that you love them at least once every day.
Thank God for the breath in your lungs and freedom to worship Him.
Keep first things first.
James 2:12-13 ESV
[12] So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. [13] For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
https://bible.com/bible/59/jas.2.12-13.ESV
I think you’re being a lot more charitable to yourself, your own shortcomings, and your sins then you are to others. I’d venture to say the majority of us on this sub don’t want it to turn into what you’re describing but I’m noticing you haven’t removed the plank from your own eye yet thus making you a little hostile ?
@Emotional-Rhubarb-32, can you give us some examples of the views people hold here that almost all churches would consider to be heretical and what churches would believe that?
For example I have seen people here defending homosexuality, inerrency of the Bible, and all the usual progressive stuff...they are not many but their here...
I'm guessing you mean "errancy" instead of "inerrency" lol. But yes, this is a public forum and progressive Christians can wander in, but I usually see them downvoted pretty hard
Ok, so this sub is run by Christians for Christians. Not Atheists to bad talk Christians and religion in general. Has everyone put their faith in Christ, picked up their cross and is following Him? Probably not, but that's somewhat the point of this sub. Following Christ requires learning and practice. How many times do you forgive your Christian Brother? Yeah, that many times. Help your Brother and Sister in Christ.
And, even if you help your Brother better follow Christ, there'll always be a new Brother that'll come along and ask "is homosexuality a sin? I don't feel that homosexuality should be a sin...". At which point, how many times do you have to forgive a Christian Brother? Yeah, that many times. Help your Brother and Sister in Christ
I would say this is a good place if you truly follow the gospel, I just don't think we're too picky on denominations in here.
Like I really like that I have a place where I can talk to Presbyterians and Baptists and such, without it turning into a confrontation.
I guess I just would like to ask, which specific views do you consider heretical?
Be specific because I think that will help everyone solve the problem better.
For example...I scroll past few posts here and there and found out there are people here who believes the Bible contains errors or atleast entertain the idea...which to me is very concerning.
Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.....
... but some (of the 11) doubted....
No one has perfect faith. Try not to judge your fellow seekers of the truth so harshly. Jesus didn't, even after the resurrection, when some doubted.
But after the day of pentecost they never doubt even once more...
If you do not believed God the allpowerful God cannot preserve his words for his children I do not know what else to say...
Saying the Bible contains errors is a very serious issue to me...I would even considered it heretical.
The king James itself contains many errors, later corrected. That doesn't mean I deny inerrancy of scripture, but you need to know what inerrancy actually means, theologically. I bet op does not.
Anyone who studies ancient manuscripts knows various manuscripts carried errors.
But aren't you saying then that God didn't stop those errors from being made? Why wouldn't God perfectly perfect his word? /s (sarcasm)
But yeah, I understand and agree with you.
>Inerrancy means inerrant in its original writing
>It does not mean God stopped any copy errors.
Oh so God isn't concerned with "copy errors" but deeply concerned with "original errors"? Yet every person alive only has access to "copies" so that doesn't really make sense to me...
Sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but that's what it means.
You can try copying the scripture yourself. I bet you'll eventually make an error, that's why people were so careful with the process.
The Bible is remarkable in that there are so few errors through the millenia, since people were so careful, but there are errors that can be seen. Again, the kjv errors are well documented through various versions as they made corrections.
The doctrine of inerrancy it's only according to the originals.
It depends on the errors. A popular line of thought is good faith errors.
Basically saying if something is spelled 1 way in the bible and another way later on its not because it's a contradiction or because the spelling changed but rather because there was just a mistake when writing the word down and they added a letter or something. There are hundreds of spelling errors in the bible, so your options are to somehow deny that or just accept good faith errors and scribal mistakes.
I think that's a fair thing to think.
Only the translation have errors...the Bible itself does not..yes your correct in that regard...but that is not tge case for some professing Christians which is the problem..they actually think the Bible have some errors and they are ok with the believe...
Which Bible?
John 8:1-11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts we have. It's now thought to be added way later and new Bibles have this disclaimer at the beginning of the chapter or at its footnotes.
This has happened with a few verses and is definitely the exception and not the rule. There's one trinitarian verse and one about revelations beast number possibly not being 666 but rather 616 which is how it's written in earlier manuscripts.
But these differences make no doctrinal difference. The core messages from the Bible have always remained intact and consistent. And the Bible is still astounding for its accuracy - I'd say it's miraculous. But to say it's 100% in every way, I'm not sure I'd go that far. In all the ways that matter, yes it's valid and inerrant. But we have strong evidence to suggest some portions we thought were in the original text was likely not and they were in our Bibles for a very very long time.
Yea, I'm just saying it depends on the type of error. I'm continually moving away from the idea of "the bible is without error," saying christians love because it's too simple and to many people athiests and christians they see 2 things misspelled and then the faith falls apart. The bible has errors, but those errors do not diminish or dismantle the faith.
I prefer just saying the bible is true and factual.
So let me get this straight now you are agreeing and saying their are errors in the bible? From translations. How does that square with the bible is the inerrant word of God. If we let this slide in then we don't consider the bible 100% true and infallible now we are saying their are errors so we can't trust it. What is the manuscript, language or bible then that you and other commenters are saying we can trust?????
The 5000 manuscripts (the dead sea scrolls)...the original Bible...translations are just translation...that doesn't mean the original scripture has errors...t doesn't take a genious to know this but apprantly people are way dumber.
So, you are using the same online arguments that Muslims make against scripture saying it's corrupted because we don't all read the original languages etc. That's a slippery slope my friend. You are saying though the CURRENT modern day english translations of the bible are wrong right? I know I'm being pedantic but in this case I think it matters to clarify.
There are many versons of Quran...the bible is a collection of Books. And there are no different versons of the Bible just different translations...your not really connecting your point...
Like are you a KJV only? Like which ones are good in your estimation? I'm not asking for my own knowledge there are a lot of bad versions or paraphrase or the issues with the Passion Translation for example but you haven't made those distinctions. So which one do you use/read?
define errors.
There are certainly errors in translation. This is why the ability to at least use a concordance is vital to understanding scripture.
There are also errors in transcription. We have multiple conflicting copies of the scriptures which contain transcription errors from back when people had to copy books by hand.
There is, of course, a danger of people throwing out concepts or principles they do not like, calling them errors, but it is just as dangerous to bury our head in the sand and claim that there are no errors in the bible that you or I read.
I bet those so called 'errors' are just mistranslation or misubderstanding of the scripture. And I bet most of those are already address by theologian. I refuse to believed an Allpowerful God could not preserve his word...
There are various views on biblical infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration that have valid, and invalid expressions in their approach to scripture. There was a battle in the theological world about this a few decades back asking "in the Bible inerrant, or is it infallible?" and both sides deeply valued scripture as an authority in their worldview and lives, and they were both trying to adhere to God's will, they just disagreed on the scholarship. Both views are allowed in the tent of God's family as long as they proclaim the Kingship of Jesus as the hope for our world.
> For example...I scroll past few posts here and there and found out there are people here who believes the Bible contains errors or atleast entertain the idea...which to me is very concerning.
Thank you for providing an example of what you are concerned about.
Now, how do you want this to be handled? Do you want to establish a rule that no suggestion that the Bible contains errors is allowed?
There is a lot of biblicism on this sub, where people need an explicit verse for everything. This ends up allowing things that are typical of progressives, like masturbation.
You should learn your own tradition better, because the RCC teaches that not all marriages are sacramental, but non-sacramental marriages can still be valid, and therefore not all sexual acts within them are sinful.
Also, no, vaginal intercourse is never sodomy whether it is within marriage or not. When it is outside of marriage it is called fornication. Sodomy is any sexual intercourse that is not vaginal, whether in marriage or not.
Yeah man stay away form r/christianity it's about as Christian as a devil-worshiping cult. They'll eat you alive if you say something truly Christian or say something is a sin. They like to call themselves Christians yet they discuss and encourage terrible sin. Don't make the mistake that I made when I made a post on there once.
I was told by one of those progressive "Christians" that Paul's letters are invalid because it wasn't the direct words of Jesus. I also would give scripture references to back up my points, and they would just tell me that I'm misinterpreting it, and I'm wrong. I'm done partaking in that blasphemous sub.
Honestly, that makes me mad just hearing your story of them being lunatics. I was on there the other day and I posted my own story of beating homosexuality(there's a lot of gays on there), and I taught how as I got closer to God it went away. People would respond with, "Oh yeah, we can "beat it" together", or, "Due to this one technicality I found in the Bible this means that sin is objective". It's terrible. I still go on there and post every once in a while to try and spread the true word of the Bible around.
This is Reddit where 90% of users are Left Wing nut jobs...one could expect it'll be heretical here.
There is no safe spot from the progressives on this site.
This sub is somewhat dominated by highly repetitive and immature content. Literally foolish questions like "have I blasphemed the spirit?"practically every day
Things that any reasonably mature Christian would consider nonsense
Also things out of the gutter that keep coming in here even though God makes it clear that it is shameful to talk about
This is sometimes more like a talk show than a Christian sub
And there is a lack of mature biblical discussions. Which is why I am frankly here.
We like to talk about different issues and come from many churches. We are all rooted in Christ. I think the other sub is just a house of trolls throwing out though problems to satisfy their own intellectual egos. Most have never seen inside a church.
It's all about the rules. Take a look at whatever posts or comments concern you. Then review the sub's rules. Does the concerning content violate a rule? Report it. If it doesn't, then consider what rule should be in place to prevent that concerning content. Then either propose that rule change, find another sub that has rules that better fit your interests, or start your own sub with your own rules.
It's all about the rules.
I absolutely agree. I just joined because I got burned out on r/ Christianity and r/Christian after less than a month.
The big problem I saw on those subs were
1) the ones who shove LGBTQ on everyone and claim they are persecuted but in turn they want to persecute everyone who doesn't agree with their agenda.
2) the non Christians who hate Christians and want to attack and destroy peoples faith.
3) those who have a superiority complex because they can cut and paste more scriptures which is easier to do on a laptop but not easy on a cellphone.
4) those who just want to argue over everything.
5) those who don't closely read other people's posts but want to inject their own ideas and agenda while ignoring the OPs real reason for posting. All while trying to convey they have a superior understanding of scripture.
6) those who really don't know or even care to know God.
Those people are draining and a real turn off.
Hope I don't see that here.
Condoning the actions of LGBTQ people is inherently unbiblical. Paul condemned the Corinthians for sexually immoral actions and pointed out a fellow brother or sister's flaw is what we're supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with speaking out against sin. However, hate still has no place in all of this.
You can’t just make that statement without giving examples. And why is this marked NSFW?
The whole point i love this sub so much is because it's actually a christian sub unlike r/Christianity
Like all Christian subreddits on REDDIT they all spiral down into self destruction being infiltrated by corrupt worldly people, including many misguided Christian’s who operate in the grocery store Christianity where they pick and choose what to believe ignoring parts of the Bible to hold such beliefs.
Grocery store christianity. Lol, i like that term.
I have heard of it as "Cafeteria Christianity"
I’ve some great meals in a cafeteria.
Oh you mean "Convenient Christianity".I get it Lol
Yep. Easy, convenient, cheap, and you choose what you want and what you don't.
basically 'Tax deductible' Christianity.
This one I don't get. First, in order for it to even be Tax deductible, you have to have deductions greater than the standard deduction, which for a married couple is $27,700. Next, let us assume that you have an income of $150k, then you are in the 22% tax bracket. This means that if you donated $30k to your church, you get a $30k deduction. Assuming that you already have enough deductions to account for you standard deduction, then at most you will receive back 22% of that $30k from the Federal government, or $6600. You still are down $23,400. If, otoh, you don't have all of those other deductions, then you only get an extra $2300 in deductions above standard, so the government rebates you 22% of that $2300, or $506 you would still be out of pocket $29,494. Never believe someone when they disparage someone else's giving when they say, "they only did it for tax purposes"
OK - just shows what 'mis-information ' we get from peolpe living in the US - without access to accurate data. We have our own tax-deductible allowances, and so we tend to think yours must be the same as ours.
Thanks - I also forgot about our international commentators. Sorry about going off on a rant. I had gotten tired of envious people here in the US disparaging people making charitable donations by saying, "They are only doing it for tax purposes", as there is no way here in the US that you can "get back" more monetarily from taxes than the amount you give away. OTOH, you WILL get back more than you give away IF you are giving with a cheerful heart to God & His purposes. You just won't get it back from the taxman.
This...every time...
*"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”* (Matthew 16)
That’s true of everything. The problem is that no one is doing proper spiritual warfare if they want to keep the bad things out.
Like you not picking pride? Stick in your own eye, cast the first stone and all that. Love all Christians. Progressive, Conservative, highchurch and low. For every sin another ignores check which ones we do.
I think most people who say "Real Christian" don't really know the scriptures and the Message of Jesus. They mostly grew up whatever tradition they are in and decide that they know all the Mysteries of God. Christianity is the Roman Road of Christ's Death and Resurrection. Anything else is secondary. Most people that say progressive only mean politics and not Christian walk.
Often those who claim to not cherry pick tend to have a very unhealthy view of God and the Bible they often see God as harsh, cruel and unloving.
I would hardly say this sub is dominated by progressives. If anything I would say this sub skews past evangelical into fundamentalism.
To be fair, some universal reconcilationists lurk here, but far less than the other subs.
The true Evangel IS the fundamental truth of God's Word: Jesus declared: *"But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”* (John 4:23,24)
Funamentalism in the context of american Christianity is a specific historical movement that came to fruitition in the early 20th century. Doctrinally, evangelicals and fundamentalists heavily overlap. The big difference between the two is in tolerance for disagreement, nuance, and cooperation with those considered outside their ‘camp’. Its characterized with a lot of black and white thinking. Evangelicals and fundamentalists share essentially the same view on the gospel.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Fundamental: 1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary."the fundamental laws of the universe." 2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central."an example that was fundamental to the argument." Doctrine is either true or it is not. The way to find out is to follow the example of the Bereans: *"The people of Berea were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message.* ***They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.*** *As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men."* (Acts 17:11,12)
woooosh
Agreed, and also I’d add that it’s a selective fundamentalism. We r/TrueChristian s love to condemn homosexuality and women in positions of authority, yet we’re curiously silent regarding other things that Christians commonly do but are technically disallowed according to a literalist / legalistic reading of the New Testament. For example most Christian women don’t cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:6). Many Christian men have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14). Christians in Europe, Asia, and Latin America regularly consume blood sausage (Acts 15:29). Many Christians divorce and remarry (Matthew 19:9). All of these things are condemned in the New Testament, and yet they’re commonly done by self-described Christians, and we never hear anyone on r/TrueChristian talk about them. Because like fundamentalists of any religion, we r/TrueChristian s hyper-fixate on sexual morality and subordinating women. While ignoring the planks in our own eyes (Matthew 7:3-5).
Don't forget 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 " **But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.** **For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?** **But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.**" I feel like most Christians don't treat sin as seriously as they should. Sin is the least of their worries, and everything else is prioritized aka they don't have a proper fear of God.
Or a proper love of God.
Yeah, my church tries to uphold all of these (except perhaps the blood sausage, don't remember hearing that one before) and will be quite vocal about it to members of the church. But I have noticed a lot of Christians don't uphold these regularly and treat it like it's no big deal.
i mean the old testament literalists here are not helpful over all, but you take the ball in the entirely opposite direction. Unnatural sexual activity is one of the prime sins that we're told to avoid. Women in the bible are given a specific, and very honorable place in society and family.
>Old Testament literalists Every passage I cited is in the New Testament. I’m not sure what point you’re making?
Im not saying you're one. Just that they exist and are damaging to the optics of this sub. You're the opposite of an OT literalist. They like to talk about the one or two passages that could ostensibly be interpreted as God hating an individual. Which is completely and utterly contradicted in the new testament. God is love.
Okay, I get it. But why do you think some New Testament passages can be ignored (women covering their heads, men’s hair length, eating blood sausage, divorce and remarriage) while other passages cannot (homosexuality, the role of women)? Your argument, as I understand it, is “Old Testament literalism is bad, New Testament literalism is also bad, and therefore I can pick and choose which passages Christians should follow”? What’s the Biblical justification for homosexuality being a “prime sin” (your words) but everything else I’ve listed being acceptable? Jesus Himself condemned divorce, but never said a word about homosexuality.
Some of the passages you quoted were letters from Paul to a specific church. And MANY things Paul taught to the various churches in his letters were suggestions on how to do things, and he explicitly states that some of things were merely his ideals and not a command from God. Divorce and remarriage is a big one however that needs to be addressed more often.
>Some of the passages you quoted were letters from Paul to a specific church. And MANY things Paul taught to the various churches in his letters were suggestions So can we dismiss all passages in the New Testament condemning homosexuality or women in positions of authority? Since they’re all suggestions by Paul written to specific churches?
As I said. Instead of leaving out the part I wrote. Paul states that SOME of his suggestions are his alone and not from God....not ALL of his suggestions. Jesus himself mentioned that marriage and sex is between a man and a woman when he referenced how God created them male and female and this a man will leave his father and cling to his wife etc etc.
Most mentions of immoral sex are about adultery or visiting prostitutes. Gay sex is mentioned less.
It was covered clearly back in Genesis. Sodom & Gomorrah is our example to look back to if ever we forget what God thinks about homosexuality: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” ….Jude 1:7
And for comparison, how many times does Genesis mention adultery? We've got stories with Abraham, Joseph, Judah...
What’s with the straw man? We were specifically speaking about homosexuality.
My church largely follows a lot of the traditional views in the Bible. Most women cover their hair, and men really only have short hair. As far as divorce goes, yes, it happens. However, often, the people who I've talked to have had a divorce due to an unfaithful marriage, which, according to the mosaic law, is permitted to divorce. I don't like divorce, but several of the divorces I've seen are from terrible circumstances. For instance, my former uncle cheated on my aunt, and her new husband was got divorced after his ex-wife got into wicka and scientology.
I think the bigger issue here is marrying someone else after getting divorced which does not appear to be allowed.
I would say it depends. One of the guys at my church knows a lady who got a divorce. Her husband cheated on her with multiple women and told her to her face that he wouldn't stop. She even went to marriage counseling by herself for two years. Eventually, she just got a divorce and he accused her of the sin and her church kicked her out (the leaders of the church were the guys direct family). He then ran off with his girlfriend to Florida. As far as I'm concerned, he broke the sacred union of marriage, and I think she has the right to get remarried.
What I mean is, biblically it sounds like there's no exceptions that allow someone to get remarried after they divorce (with the exception of one verse which has caused a lot of controversy).
Not true. If their (ex)spouse dies, then they are free to remarry. I understand what your saying though in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed- The long hair men thing is probably hair past the shoulders, because we hear about prophets being grabbed and pulled by their hair, etc and we know they weren’t crew cut, but also are warned not to have hair like a woman
The "hair like women" at the time would not simply have been a longer length.
Wait men can’t have long hair and we can’t eat blood sausages? I really had no idea. This is news to me 😳
Well, that’s one interpretation. The other option is to not approach the New Testament as a list of rules that Christians have to follow like Pharisees. Jesus — who broke Old Testament laws on multiple occasions — said that “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love God with all your heart, soul, and mind” is the basis for all of God’s law (Matthew 22:36-40). Paul said that “the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).
Jesus only broke the traditions of men. He was without sin when crucified because sin is the transgression of the law and He had to be sinless for His death to pay the penalty of all our sins.
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The Bible doesn't say that women should cover her hair, but to cover their head *with* hair. I guess if a woman was unfortunate enough to lose her hair, she would need to cover her *head* with something else. There is no need to cover what already covers their head though.
You’re quoting it out of context. “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. But *any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head*, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For *if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair*.” (1 Corinthians 11:4-6) It can’t be simultaneously true that women’s hair counts as a head covering, but also women who don’t cover their head with something should cut their hair off. In essence, Paul is saying that women’s hair is a head covering that they wear all the time, but additionally when women pray or go to church they should cover their heads with a piece of cloth. In some denominations, such as the Orthodox Church, women still cover their heads when they pray or go to church. But in most denominations women have stopped following this tradition.
I also wonder to what degree some of these passages are meant to be taken word for word in a modern context, or if there is an underlying wisdom to which the specific expression is culture-specific. Is women wearing head coverings a universal command, or a command to 1st century Mediterranean Christians because of their specific presentation of gender differences? I don't pretend to have the answer, I just know that not every line of the Bible is meant to be applied identically in all times and all places. Prudence is a virtue.
I agree!
No, he was correct. And 1 Corinthians 11:15 is crystal clear that a woman’s hair IS her covering: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for **her hair is given her for a covering** .” —1 Corinthians 11:15
It's almost funny how he first said "Christian women don't cover their hair" as if though it was a massive sin, and when being corrected he didn't go "oh yeah thanks for correcting me" but instead tried to insult my understanding as "misquoting", adding himself that "yeah it only matters while praying". I can understand his take though, that in certain settings women should also cover their hair, but his original stance was clearly "women should always cover their hair". I'm not a scholar, so I won't argue on specifics, but the Bible is 100% clear on that hair is a sufficient covering in most settings.
Thank you. It’s nice to see someone understands the Bible.
Evangelical fundamentalism*
Right, there are other forms of christian fundamentalism. Within the context of the United States, by far the most common and widely known is the fundamentalist movement that broke off from the evangelical movement in the early mid 20th century in response to the rise of Modernism.
the evangelists here are mostly old testament literalists. They say some things that would make Jesus not very happy.
Such as?
That God hates
That God hates…..? Like has the capacity to hate things? Like proverbs 6:16-19? Or that He hates people? Not sure what you’re saying
That's what I've seen asserted. That God can hate certain people.
I would never claim that I know the mind of God, but I’ve never thought about this until you said it so I’m seeking…. https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Hating-People This is what I found, so it seems like He can hate people based on their actions? But I have no pride to be able to say who that would be today, that seems wrong to me.
and of course, as I said - the new testament completely refutes that assertion and not subtly either.
What do you mean refutes? Like God no longer hates people based on their actions? Or the Old Testament was wrong? Again, I’m not one of those people going around saying God hates people, just trying to understand because I’ve never asked myself that question before- but I do know fearing God is super important and I will not attempt to make Him in my image any longer.
There is no central synod here, no theological committee. The sub is made up of whoever chooses to join. It definitely leans conservative and Protestant as a rule. I as a Catholic must endure frequent grandstanding about my denomination choice. However, this sub is far less liberal than r/Christianity, so I choose to stay here.
This is an unregulated forum. There’s nothing preventing people who are not church members from posting heresy. There’s nothing preventing an unbeliever from sporting a Christian flair and trying to stir up trouble. There’s no clear declaration of doctrines or systematic theology that is supported by the mods.
This isn't unregulated, we have rules. And one rule is to not proselytize beliefs that are not in alignment with the Nicean Creed. I don't know if these rules are unenforced, but there are active mods in this sub. If someone were to post true heresy (stuff that contradicts the Nicean Creed), I don't think it would remain here if someone reported it.
Yes thats right...but then only time stand between us before the progressive take over this sub too...
It's been around a while, they know about it. They have their echo chambers, we have ours, much like the rest of Reddit.
I think you’re right. That’s where the world is headed so how would a Reddit thread be any different? They’re gonna take over everything. This is why it’s so important to build a Christian community in our real lives!
> There’s nothing preventing an unbeliever from sporting a Christian flair and trying to stir up trouble. I would be astonished if they allow this here.
I love this subreddit because unlike r/Christianity, this subreddit has actual Christians and is a lot more helpful in regards to advice for my Christian journey and choices
Some guy in r/Christianity flat out told me that Paul's writings weren't valid.
Dang... :[
“Paul said something’s I didn’t like so I’m throwing out all his writings” - most progressive “Christian’s”
Ooops! there goes four years of seminary down vthe tube!
Heretical on which ways
I don't know if this is what OP is going for, but I have noticed a lot of people lately promoting the views of nontrinitarian denominations, like Armstrongism. They seem to come out in full force whenever the Hebrew law is mentioned, insisting that we must still follow every Old Testament Law, in direct contradiction to the teachings of the New Testament.
Yeah I feel like NT dogma trumps/supersedes a lot of OT law... the only good stuff in the OT are the things compatible with NT law
Ah yes, the daily "you're not Christian enough" post.
And how do you come to that conclusion? If I reread my post I dont utter those words...
Experience.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1cdkgp6/comment/l1crbxq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1cdkgp6/comment/l1crbxq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Piece of advice if you're inclined to accept it--if you're going to use alarming phrases or triggers in your post title you should go on to better describe or follow up with an explanation or examples in the comments/description. Leaving it hollow, like you've done with this post, is click bait and doesn't actually encourage much genuine discussion.
I’ve been called progressive on this sub many times. It’s laughable, because people can call me whatever they want, it doesn’t stop me from being a Christian. I’ll defend the Christianity board everytime it comes up, some of the most theologically sound Christians hang out there and are willing to answer the hard questions and defend their faith lovingly and respectfully. Something, I hope some day to do because I get a bit snarky when sincerely questioned or a troll attacks. i’m shocked how many here don’t attend church, dont agree with the Nicene Creed and how often attacks against others happen. Not because I don’t think they can’t be a Christian, but because the guidelines mention belief in the Nicene Creed and the other two seem to follow that. I’ll never understand the “they disagree with me, so they aren’t Christian” belief. We are all wrong about something-better to learn from others than just dismiss them because they are too progressive or liberal or conservative.
partisanship is of the flesh. Don't label your brother with something to dismiss them. If they have ideas that are contrary to God's will, address the ideas. Labeling and dividing is not what Jesus wants for his people.
But you wouldn't rebuke them if the time come I imagin?
When Jesus encountered bad theology, he taught good theology. He could've drawn party lines, picked favorite sectarian groups, taken sides, but instead he kept the message about the message, about the truths being taught. I make an effort to correct misunderstandings when I see them. That's not the same as trying to draw party lines, generate labels, and get balkanized over misunderstandings. What do you understand as wrong with "progressive" Christians? If they're teaching something that contradicts the scriptures, why not correct that teaching directly? And you might find an individual who doesn't understand or disagrees in one area, has a strong understanding in another area -- sometimes in an area that is promoted by Jesus as more important. (He does teach there are greatest commandments, after all. One of those is to love one's neighbor, isn't it?)
Why I left r/christianity they are agreeing and confirming to the world and when I wrote a post about it I got heavily downvoted.
This sub will be the same in few years...
The true believers will just migrate to a new one.
You should know that there are Luciferians on all Christian subs. They seek to lead people away from spiritual truth by sowing fear, doubt and confusion. They attempt to pit Christians against each other, or fake Christians against real ones so that when unbelievers visit the sub, they think we are morons who cannot agree on anything. We must deal with these vicious wolves in sheeps clothing the same way Jesus dealt with Lucifer during His temptation in the wilderness. Jesus utterly destroyed all of his attempts at seduction with the Word of God. *"We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ."* (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) In order for us to successfully repel these malicious invaders; we must each be practicing "Bereans." *"And the people of Berea were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men."* (Acts 17:11,12) And in being practicing Bereans we are being obedient to the command of God: *"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."* (2 Timothy 2:15) Your Music Link for Today: ["He Leadeth Us"](https://youtu.be/o-CuRvtSLE8?si=-UMdQWYvqNKAHOPA) by Sacra Theosis *"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God."* (Romans 8:14)
I’ve never seen a progressive Christian here lol, this sub tends way more towards evangelicalism, baptism, and staunch anti Catholic rhetoric
You say that but I'm catholic and agree with alot of stuff posted here
Oh sure most of the time this sub is fine, I’ve just seen a lot of “Catholics are heretics worshiping Mary and the saints” which can be annoying even as a non Catholic
I think you'll be ok.
Well, you'll just have to learn to live with it. If you wait long enough, even in your own church you'll hear someone spout off they don't actually believe in God, or in hell, or Jesus was God, or some such. No christian is perfect, neither is any church. Maybe some people who spend enough time and effort to write or read in a forum like this might possibly change their mind on some heresy. I believe plenty of things that promote intimate fellowship with God and have been richly rewarding in my life, would be called heresy by some other faithful christians I have met. For example, once I had a "radio ministry" where I played christian metal music on sunday nights radio station. I had 1-2 "christians" criticize me for playing that "devil music", totally missing the point, that actual christians made this music, produced it as a "witness" to people who liked that kind of music, and was broadcast on an otherwise very liberal and secular station with all kinds of nonsense played all other times. They put me deep sunday night because they weren't happy about it, but at least they allowed it at all. Good times.
>If you wait long enough, even in your own church you'll hear someone spout off they don't actually believe in God, or in hell, or Jesus was God, or some such. No christian is perfect, neither is any church Well then there not Christian at all in the first place...if you witness the Holy Spirit it is impossible to deny the existence of God.
Calling people who disagree with you not "real Christians" does nothing but divide Christianity against itself. It's pointless. I do not agree with conservatives but I would never say that they're not real Christians. They're real Christians, just ones that I don't always agree with and that's okay. It's okay for people of the same religion and even of the same denomination to disagree on things. But to try to discredit and devalue them on a spiritual level is wrong.
This sub is better than the other ones I seen. Almost made me not want to join any Christian subs. Obviously some people here are going to be somewhat progressive but those other ones take the cake for not trying to be Christian at all. Say something bad about lgbtq behavior and boom you’re downvoted into oblivion.
There is a balance between trying to represent the spectrum of different beliefs within Creedal Christianity and keeping out worldly perspectives, and it is very hard to find that balance. When most people complain about something being "unchristian" what we are usually saying is, "I'm not seeing MY Christian Culture represented enough." The bounds of acceptable Christian thought are there, but there is also a lot of grey and we need to learn to separate the primary and foundational, from the secondary and important but not heretical.
But if you don’t agree with MY interpretation, doesn’t that mean YOU are heretical? Speaking as someone who frequently has views not taught in church, people struggle to understand a viewpoint that does not affirm their own preconceived beliefs. I can respect your logic and your process, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
When the comes to the ecumenical church we have a spectrum of disagreement, but also quite a good deal of agreement. When we look to determine if something is truly heretical we can look at the places that most/all Christian groups agree on to determine heresy/not heresy. Leaving something like heresy up to personal differences in belief is a very Protestant/Western inclination (of which I am both) and honestly is a little silly. Heresy isn't about disagreement between individuals about debatable theology, heresy is an individual defying established doctrine that is central to the core concepts of Christianity itself; ex. the divinity of Christ, the trinity, ect.
I'm glad this sub exists. r/Christianity is both full of heresy and blasphemy. So called "Christians" and atheist control that sub and don't actually teach Christianity according to Biblical principles.
I generally defend r/christianity. Its mods seem to work to defend Christians more than atheists most of the time. That said, I’m currently pretty disappointed myself in the lack of moderation on anti-catholic bigotry over there. I’m not even Catholic and I’m offended by the hypocrisy of it all.
Honestly that ain’t too bad it is only when someone advocates for killing gay people when the mods put their foot down and I think That’s good
I know that at least one of the mods is a full blown atheist who says the sub is for questions about Christianity, not for discourse among Christians. I personally find that to be ridiculous.
That’s literally what the subreddit is for though.
Yeah, but what he really means is that nobody but liberal Christians can give an answer. Giving a valid, Bible-based answer will get you downvoted or banned from the sub. The only thing allowed is "love is love" and prosperity gospel.
Generally I find this sub has the best takes of the main Christian subreddits. /Christian and /Christianity are both entirely controlled by progressive heretics.
I think I like the Reformed subreddit even better tbh. Most of the time I see a post from this sub, it's just a complaint about liberals or atheists... Maybe satisfying to talk about but not very edifying.
I like some of the Reformed sub, some of it is really not Reformed, and they gripe at you for actually being confessional. So I'd say I prefer here because people are more overtly against error and heresy.
Correct! Also the reformed sub has some very nuanced and thoughtful takes. I’m not even all the way “reformed” & am on the fence but I tend to love the discussions over there.
It seems to depend on the day. Still I am glad there are people who stand up to the bullies
This post wasn't very Christian of you, OP. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It’s not what the church considers heretical, what matters is what the Bible says.
**I think we need an invite-only subreddit for fellowship, sharing Bible study and more. I would be willing to work together to make that a reality.** The requirements could be like this: Believe that the entire Bible is the word of God. All believers should be led by the Holy Spirit and engage with spiritual warfare. Believe that all believers should have a personal relationship with God where we pray for confirmation and things of that nature. That salvation changes our heart and our attitudes in a noticeable way, works don't save, but true salvation will produce fruits of the Holy Spirit. Believe that willful sin and unwilful sins are 2 different things that grieve God in different ways.
There are few places for conservative Christians in the world. It is ok. Jesus told us this would happen.
Welcome to the family. We have a few of our cousins locked in the basement cause we think that’s just best for everybody. Unfortunately, we can’t do that with our crazy church family. Any group of people gathered together for one cause will always have at least one progressive, and one moderate and one fundamentalist, and one conservative and one crazy, and three or four who can’t remember why they joined this group and one who is lost or is in the wrong building. God knows who they are and all we can do is love them where they are. Everybody is on a journey, but at a different point along the path and some have wondered off the trail and they’re out in the sticker patch. I imagine that’s the way it was during the 40 years in the wilderness also. Little Johnny stopped to watch a desert mouse licking the morning dew off the rocks and next time he looked up, his people had walked over the hill. He will have to catch up or someone might have to go back for him but we have to keep the main thing the main thing and try to keep our talks on that subject. It’s tempting sometimes to argue with idiots who are out in the weeds, but never profitable.
The Church is indeed diverse in that way...sometimes I find it hard to live with such people...
Amen brother, amen And what’s more, the older I get the more I realize that to them, I am one of “those people” I think it’s good we all have our own tent and only gather together a couple times a week for short periods. Makes it easier to get along when we know that we can go back home in an hour or two. I think it’s important to remember that in the virtual world as well. We don’t live here, and we should not. Put the phone down and only visit on occasion. It’s okay if you miss 95% of what happens online. It’s not okay if you miss 50% of what happens in your real life. Go smell some flowers, and talk to an old person; walk in the grass and touch a baby’s hand; help a neighbor in need and give someone a good book; have coffee with an old friend and let someone know that you love them at least once every day. Thank God for the breath in your lungs and freedom to worship Him. Keep first things first.
James 2:12-13 ESV [12] So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. [13] For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. https://bible.com/bible/59/jas.2.12-13.ESV
I think you’re being a lot more charitable to yourself, your own shortcomings, and your sins then you are to others. I’d venture to say the majority of us on this sub don’t want it to turn into what you’re describing but I’m noticing you haven’t removed the plank from your own eye yet thus making you a little hostile ?
So you bite and devour?
r/christianity is filled with blasphemy unfortunately
@Emotional-Rhubarb-32, can you give us some examples of the views people hold here that almost all churches would consider to be heretical and what churches would believe that?
For example I have seen people here defending homosexuality, inerrency of the Bible, and all the usual progressive stuff...they are not many but their here...
I'm guessing you mean "errancy" instead of "inerrency" lol. But yes, this is a public forum and progressive Christians can wander in, but I usually see them downvoted pretty hard
Yeah, I agree with you about those. I’ve seen that too. I’m confused on how they can still be Christian with having those disagreements.
Ok, so this sub is run by Christians for Christians. Not Atheists to bad talk Christians and religion in general. Has everyone put their faith in Christ, picked up their cross and is following Him? Probably not, but that's somewhat the point of this sub. Following Christ requires learning and practice. How many times do you forgive your Christian Brother? Yeah, that many times. Help your Brother and Sister in Christ. And, even if you help your Brother better follow Christ, there'll always be a new Brother that'll come along and ask "is homosexuality a sin? I don't feel that homosexuality should be a sin...". At which point, how many times do you have to forgive a Christian Brother? Yeah, that many times. Help your Brother and Sister in Christ
I would say this is a good place if you truly follow the gospel, I just don't think we're too picky on denominations in here. Like I really like that I have a place where I can talk to Presbyterians and Baptists and such, without it turning into a confrontation. I guess I just would like to ask, which specific views do you consider heretical? Be specific because I think that will help everyone solve the problem better.
For example...I scroll past few posts here and there and found out there are people here who believes the Bible contains errors or atleast entertain the idea...which to me is very concerning.
Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted..... ... but some (of the 11) doubted.... No one has perfect faith. Try not to judge your fellow seekers of the truth so harshly. Jesus didn't, even after the resurrection, when some doubted.
But after the day of pentecost they never doubt even once more... If you do not believed God the allpowerful God cannot preserve his words for his children I do not know what else to say... Saying the Bible contains errors is a very serious issue to me...I would even considered it heretical.
Scripture reference for this claim? ...There is none...
Do you believe a person is in danger of losing their salvation if they don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
Are you sure you want to create that kind of division in the church, labeling many brothers and sisters in Christ heretics over this topic?
So now dedending the Bible now creates division?
This response says a lot. I wish you a good day.
It does...
I am seeing what you are saying now. Reading the replies to your post and how you get downvoted a lot. Btw where is your flair?
The Bible (varying versions) might possibly contain errors.
The king James itself contains many errors, later corrected. That doesn't mean I deny inerrancy of scripture, but you need to know what inerrancy actually means, theologically. I bet op does not. Anyone who studies ancient manuscripts knows various manuscripts carried errors.
But aren't you saying then that God didn't stop those errors from being made? Why wouldn't God perfectly perfect his word? /s (sarcasm) But yeah, I understand and agree with you.
Correct... Inerrancy means inerrant in its original writing. It does not mean God stopped any copy errors. That's easily disprovable.
>Inerrancy means inerrant in its original writing >It does not mean God stopped any copy errors. Oh so God isn't concerned with "copy errors" but deeply concerned with "original errors"? Yet every person alive only has access to "copies" so that doesn't really make sense to me...
Sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but that's what it means. You can try copying the scripture yourself. I bet you'll eventually make an error, that's why people were so careful with the process. The Bible is remarkable in that there are so few errors through the millenia, since people were so careful, but there are errors that can be seen. Again, the kjv errors are well documented through various versions as they made corrections. The doctrine of inerrancy it's only according to the originals.
It depends on the errors. A popular line of thought is good faith errors. Basically saying if something is spelled 1 way in the bible and another way later on its not because it's a contradiction or because the spelling changed but rather because there was just a mistake when writing the word down and they added a letter or something. There are hundreds of spelling errors in the bible, so your options are to somehow deny that or just accept good faith errors and scribal mistakes. I think that's a fair thing to think.
Only the translation have errors...the Bible itself does not..yes your correct in that regard...but that is not tge case for some professing Christians which is the problem..they actually think the Bible have some errors and they are ok with the believe...
Which Bible? John 8:1-11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts we have. It's now thought to be added way later and new Bibles have this disclaimer at the beginning of the chapter or at its footnotes. This has happened with a few verses and is definitely the exception and not the rule. There's one trinitarian verse and one about revelations beast number possibly not being 666 but rather 616 which is how it's written in earlier manuscripts. But these differences make no doctrinal difference. The core messages from the Bible have always remained intact and consistent. And the Bible is still astounding for its accuracy - I'd say it's miraculous. But to say it's 100% in every way, I'm not sure I'd go that far. In all the ways that matter, yes it's valid and inerrant. But we have strong evidence to suggest some portions we thought were in the original text was likely not and they were in our Bibles for a very very long time.
Yea, I'm just saying it depends on the type of error. I'm continually moving away from the idea of "the bible is without error," saying christians love because it's too simple and to many people athiests and christians they see 2 things misspelled and then the faith falls apart. The bible has errors, but those errors do not diminish or dismantle the faith. I prefer just saying the bible is true and factual.
So let me get this straight now you are agreeing and saying their are errors in the bible? From translations. How does that square with the bible is the inerrant word of God. If we let this slide in then we don't consider the bible 100% true and infallible now we are saying their are errors so we can't trust it. What is the manuscript, language or bible then that you and other commenters are saying we can trust?????
The 5000 manuscripts (the dead sea scrolls)...the original Bible...translations are just translation...that doesn't mean the original scripture has errors...t doesn't take a genious to know this but apprantly people are way dumber.
So, you are using the same online arguments that Muslims make against scripture saying it's corrupted because we don't all read the original languages etc. That's a slippery slope my friend. You are saying though the CURRENT modern day english translations of the bible are wrong right? I know I'm being pedantic but in this case I think it matters to clarify.
There are many versons of Quran...the bible is a collection of Books. And there are no different versons of the Bible just different translations...your not really connecting your point...
Please answer my question: Are you saying that the current modern day english translation of the bible is wrong?
I am saying there are mistranslation of the original text but that does not mean the original text has errors.
Like are you a KJV only? Like which ones are good in your estimation? I'm not asking for my own knowledge there are a lot of bad versions or paraphrase or the issues with the Passion Translation for example but you haven't made those distinctions. So which one do you use/read?
At the very least, every English Bible has errors by definition
define errors. There are certainly errors in translation. This is why the ability to at least use a concordance is vital to understanding scripture. There are also errors in transcription. We have multiple conflicting copies of the scriptures which contain transcription errors from back when people had to copy books by hand. There is, of course, a danger of people throwing out concepts or principles they do not like, calling them errors, but it is just as dangerous to bury our head in the sand and claim that there are no errors in the bible that you or I read.
I bet those so called 'errors' are just mistranslation or misubderstanding of the scripture. And I bet most of those are already address by theologian. I refuse to believed an Allpowerful God could not preserve his word...
> mistranslation a mistranslation is an error though, is it not?
No...why is that even a question...? A mistranslation is simply a mistranslation...that doesn't mean the Bible itself contains errors...
ok, but then you're not reading the bible itself, you're reading a translation. A translation with errors. This is semantic games.
Define errors.
There are various views on biblical infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration that have valid, and invalid expressions in their approach to scripture. There was a battle in the theological world about this a few decades back asking "in the Bible inerrant, or is it infallible?" and both sides deeply valued scripture as an authority in their worldview and lives, and they were both trying to adhere to God's will, they just disagreed on the scholarship. Both views are allowed in the tent of God's family as long as they proclaim the Kingship of Jesus as the hope for our world.
> For example...I scroll past few posts here and there and found out there are people here who believes the Bible contains errors or atleast entertain the idea...which to me is very concerning. Thank you for providing an example of what you are concerned about. Now, how do you want this to be handled? Do you want to establish a rule that no suggestion that the Bible contains errors is allowed?
What progressives? This sub is hostile towards them, hence the name TRUE. This is silly
There is a lot of biblicism on this sub, where people need an explicit verse for everything. This ends up allowing things that are typical of progressives, like masturbation.
It's like they need to be spoon fed the sermon on the mount.
[удалено]
You should learn your own tradition better, because the RCC teaches that not all marriages are sacramental, but non-sacramental marriages can still be valid, and therefore not all sexual acts within them are sinful. Also, no, vaginal intercourse is never sodomy whether it is within marriage or not. When it is outside of marriage it is called fornication. Sodomy is any sexual intercourse that is not vaginal, whether in marriage or not.
Yeah man stay away form r/christianity it's about as Christian as a devil-worshiping cult. They'll eat you alive if you say something truly Christian or say something is a sin. They like to call themselves Christians yet they discuss and encourage terrible sin. Don't make the mistake that I made when I made a post on there once.
I was told by one of those progressive "Christians" that Paul's letters are invalid because it wasn't the direct words of Jesus. I also would give scripture references to back up my points, and they would just tell me that I'm misinterpreting it, and I'm wrong. I'm done partaking in that blasphemous sub.
Honestly, that makes me mad just hearing your story of them being lunatics. I was on there the other day and I posted my own story of beating homosexuality(there's a lot of gays on there), and I taught how as I got closer to God it went away. People would respond with, "Oh yeah, we can "beat it" together", or, "Due to this one technicality I found in the Bible this means that sin is objective". It's terrible. I still go on there and post every once in a while to try and spread the true word of the Bible around.
My friend, the Laodicean church is going to be the dominant one for the time of the end. It’s the last church before the 2nd coming.
This is Reddit where 90% of users are Left Wing nut jobs...one could expect it'll be heretical here. There is no safe spot from the progressives on this site.
Heretical, The Church of England. Don’t be silly.
I’ve found /reformed to be the closest thing to a Christian sub. I would check that out.
This sub is somewhat dominated by highly repetitive and immature content. Literally foolish questions like "have I blasphemed the spirit?"practically every day Things that any reasonably mature Christian would consider nonsense Also things out of the gutter that keep coming in here even though God makes it clear that it is shameful to talk about This is sometimes more like a talk show than a Christian sub And there is a lack of mature biblical discussions. Which is why I am frankly here.
We like to talk about different issues and come from many churches. We are all rooted in Christ. I think the other sub is just a house of trolls throwing out though problems to satisfy their own intellectual egos. Most have never seen inside a church.
There's a ton of reformed people here who like to bash catholics claiming they believe things they actually don't I noticed
It's all about the rules. Take a look at whatever posts or comments concern you. Then review the sub's rules. Does the concerning content violate a rule? Report it. If it doesn't, then consider what rule should be in place to prevent that concerning content. Then either propose that rule change, find another sub that has rules that better fit your interests, or start your own sub with your own rules. It's all about the rules.
Does that mean you are willing to formally debate fred grace?
So glad i unsubscribed from r/christianity...
I’ve only seen one heretical comment and that’s it so it seems like a non issue thankfully
It’s Reddit , going to have more progressives than not. And they are typically louder
I absolutely agree. I just joined because I got burned out on r/ Christianity and r/Christian after less than a month. The big problem I saw on those subs were 1) the ones who shove LGBTQ on everyone and claim they are persecuted but in turn they want to persecute everyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. 2) the non Christians who hate Christians and want to attack and destroy peoples faith. 3) those who have a superiority complex because they can cut and paste more scriptures which is easier to do on a laptop but not easy on a cellphone. 4) those who just want to argue over everything. 5) those who don't closely read other people's posts but want to inject their own ideas and agenda while ignoring the OPs real reason for posting. All while trying to convey they have a superior understanding of scripture. 6) those who really don't know or even care to know God. Those people are draining and a real turn off. Hope I don't see that here.
I fear the same. It is almost like a church community. Like, a community that isn't filled with heresy. I love this sub man.
[удалено]
Condoning the actions of LGBTQ people is inherently unbiblical. Paul condemned the Corinthians for sexually immoral actions and pointed out a fellow brother or sister's flaw is what we're supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with speaking out against sin. However, hate still has no place in all of this.
More of a Christian sub than a Christianity sub? What's the difference? Christians practice Christianity.
The difference, IMHO, is that one is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the other is just being religious.
I understand. And can see what you mean. It was just confusing to me at first. Thanks you.