Ineffectiveness of the Church in America

[ABikerSailor]

I am saying that the idea that Christians are somehow perfect people is a false notion of Christianity held by many people and that is not the measure of a Christian.

Actually the problem is with the Christians themselves in their declaration "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven". They tend to think that they can screw up all week, and on Sunday they go and ask for forgiveness, getting a "clean slate" for the next week when they repeat all the bad behaviors from the previous one.

If many Christians really understood the concept of forgiveness, then maybe they'd act better. Forgiveness doesn't mean that you simply admit what you did was wrong, it's admitting what you did was wrong, you make restitution for it, and then solemly resolve to never do that behavior again.

But........like I said, most Christians use Yeshua (Jesus) as a get out of jail free card, without bothering to actually look into the behavior they did in the first place.

 

[Gagafritz]

No. They aren't excuses. You don't want to accept our answers. If one is following Biblical principles, there is no compulsion to leave the army or to not enact the death penalty on those who are guilty of heinous crimes. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with those positions and following Christianity.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I am not seeing a wide divide of conduct or conviction between those who attend a Christian church of whatever denomination on Sunday and their conduct in the world. As Gagafritz mentioned earlier, Christians are no more and no less 'sinners' than anybody else. "Sin" in this case is defined as that which harms ourselves and/or others and/or spoils the perfect creation that God gave us. We are all guilty by 'sins' of omission and commission and at times we all have feet of clay.

But though I know some self-proclaimed Atheists and agnostics who do participate from time to time, I simply don't see ongoing world relief ministries among some of the world's poorest people, or leper colonies, or thrift shops, or soup kitchens, or rehab centers, or homeless shelters, or blood banks, free clinics or hospital auxiliaries, etc. etc. etc. organized, staffed, funded, and maintained by Atheists and agnostics. These are mostly organized, funded, staffed, and operated by mostly Christians.

According to an exhaustive study headed by Arthur Brooks a few years ago, Christians, most especially those who attend church more regularly, are far more likely to contribute to chartieis, far more likely to volunteer, more likely to give blood, more likely to take risks to help others.

The anti-Christian and/or anti-religion crowd may likely focus on the occasional unethical, dishonest, and/or unprincipled person who identifies himself or herself as a Christian. Such people absolutely exist. They exist among Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and every other variety of religion and also among Atheists and agnostics too. They always have and always will.

But those on the inside track who see the big picture know that the Church and the Christians who make it up are absolutely making a difference in relieving suffering and giving a helping hand up and also in providing higher ethics in business and being a stabilizing and positive force in their respective communities - WHEN - Christianity is coupled with a free society.

I think it is no coincidence both in the USA and Mexico and elsewhere that as Christianity has been increasingly criticized and church attendance has declined, corruption and violence have escalated. You can point to no country in which Atheism is the official religious position and/or in which large segments of the population have not been oppressed and denied basic human rights.

Well, we're a little outside the lines of what I was asking but that's Ok.

It's not so much MY insistence that the Church is ineffective, it seems to me that the Church makes a lot of noise about it. It's usually the Church telling me how terrible society is how far our morals have fallen and how dire the situation is. If the Church had half the optimism as you do, we wouldn't be talking about it, I don't suppose.

As far as charities any sort of competition for who does the most good...well...that's just not a productive or definitive thing we can establish. I could go on about the Peace Corp, or Paramedics for children, a charity clinic in Honduras run by a friend of mine, or evem my own charity that isn't church sponsored and mostly staffed by non church types.

Now... let's not fall into the Athiest vs Christian talk. I'm not an athiest, I am a Christin. My question goes to the ineffectiveness of the Church on Christians. If you want to ask about the Churches ineffectiveness on athiest I'd say that is another can of worms.

 

[Gagafritz]

I am saying that the idea that Christians are somehow perfect people is a false notion of Christianity held by many people and that is not the measure of a Christian.

Actually the problem is with the Christians themselves in their declaration "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven". They tend to think that they can screw up all week, and on Sunday they go and ask for forgiveness, getting a "clean slate" for the next week when they repeat all the bad behaviors from the previous one.

If many Christians really understood the concept of forgiveness, then maybe they'd act better. Forgiveness doesn't mean that you simply admit what you did was wrong, it's admitting what you did was wrong, you make restitution for it, and then solemly resolve to never do that behavior again.

But........like I said, most Christians use Yeshua (Jesus) as a get out of jail free card, without bothering to actually look into the behavior they did in the first place.

Yes, and those are all excellent points. So much so that Paul addressed those very issues in the Book of Romans. That being saved is NOT a license to sin nor does it absolve one of striving to live a Holy life. Well said.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Military is defense, not murder.

So....if I am in the military and I shoot my wife in an argument, I get to claim defense?


Sorry, I don't buy into the whole "thou shalt not murder" Definition. I own several translations of the Bible and was raised in the Baptist church. No one ever said "murder" until politics got involved.

Now, are you guys saying that if I don't kill people, I am sinning?

Well, if you really understood the Bible, you would also know that the OT was originally written by the Jews, with the first 5 books of the OT being given to the Jews by God in the form of the Torah.

So........knowing that the OT was originally written in Hebrew is helpful.

It's also helpful to know that the OT was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuegent, and that was later translated into Latin and then English. The commandment as originally written in Hebrew was "thou shalt not MURDER", but in the translations from one language to another, it was mistranslated into "thou shalt not kill".

I'm guessing the versions of the Bible that you have are all based on the KJV.

 

[Sweet Willy]

No. They aren't excuses. You don't want to accept our answers. If one is following Biblical principles, there is no compulsion to leave the army or to not enact the death penalty on those who are guilty of heinous crimes. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with those positions and following Christianity.

So what you're saying is that this is all perfect? I mean... I'm not saying that... I am wondering why we don't see more Christians asking for fewer deaths, fewer innocent women and children and unarmed civilians killed. I'm not excusing any of that as acceptable...but you seem to say, in fact you do say " There is no inconsistency whatsoever with those positions and following Christianity" Isn't that a long way around arguing that it is indeed, "perfection"? Or at the least, a horrible excuse for how people get dead?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Military is defense, not murder.

So....if I am in the military and I shoot my wife in an argument, I get to claim defense?


Sorry, I don't buy into the whole "thou shalt not murder" Definition. I own several translations of the Bible and was raised in the Baptist church. No one ever said "murder" until politics got involved.

Now, are you guys saying that if I don't kill people, I am sinning?

Well, if you really understood the Bible, you would also know that the OT was originally written by the Jews, with the first 5 books of the OT being given to the Jews by God in the form of the Torah.

So........knowing that the OT was originally written in Hebrew is helpful.

It's also helpful to know that the OT was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuegent, and that was later translated into Latin and then English. The commandment as originally written in Hebrew was "thou shalt not MURDER", but in the translations from one language to another, it was mistranslated into "thou shalt not kill".

I'm guessing the versions of the Bible that you have are all based on the KJV.

I have and international version and a KJV and one I can't recall of the top of my head. The point being, no matter how far back you trace the Torah or the OT in Hebrew or the NT in Greek, almost all American Churches have taught this commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill". It is as common as dirt. Christians in America have not been taught "murder".

Now... getting away from the semantics of it, this goes back to the ineffectiveness of the Church. We taught "thou shalt not kill". And it didn't take.

 

[catzmeow]

I'm not asking about political change. I am asking in specific about personal values of the people in the Church. Despite people in Church in increasing numbers, it does not translate to consistent moral behavior. Consistent being the operative term here. I know that we're all sinners and we all slip. But surely we aren't going to contend that the behavior of Christians, especially on things like killing people and robbing people and adultery, is not to be expected to be better than the heathen? Are we saying that Christians are not supposed to attempt to be better human beings? And that these attempts at being better people should show us a net improvement in moral behavior? If we don't show results in being better people and following Christ teachings, can I expect that what we have is an all out embrace of the "death bed" conversion? Just be a scoundrel all your life and repent at the end?

I don't really buy that brand of Christianity. I believe we have a purpose on Earth and I believe that purpose is given to us to act upon, not to continually excuse ourselves by the wages of sin.

I think it's because Christianity in America has become infotainment, and requires very little in the way of personal sacrifice. It's big business, and the pews are plush and comfortable. It's not about a way of life, it's about showing up occasionally, sitting in a pew, saying the right things, and wearing cute clothes. And, that's about it.

There is very little about taking up the cross and following, or what that really would mean, tangibly speaking. If you piss the sheep off too much, they don't tithe and they fire your butt.

 

[Foxfyre]

So....if I am in the military and I shoot my wife in an argument, I get to claim defense?


Sorry, I don't buy into the whole "thou shalt not murder" Definition. I own several translations of the Bible and was raised in the Baptist church. No one ever said "murder" until politics got involved.

Now, are you guys saying that if I don't kill people, I am sinning?

Well, if you really understood the Bible, you would also know that the OT was originally written by the Jews, with the first 5 books of the OT being given to the Jews by God in the form of the Torah.

So........knowing that the OT was originally written in Hebrew is helpful.

It's also helpful to know that the OT was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuegent, and that was later translated into Latin and then English. The commandment as originally written in Hebrew was "thou shalt not MURDER", but in the translations from one language to another, it was mistranslated into "thou shalt not kill".

I'm guessing the versions of the Bible that you have are all based on the KJV.

I have and international version and a KJV and one I can't recall of the top of my head. The point being, no matter how far back you trace the Torah or the OT in Hebrew or the NT in Greek, almost all American Churches have taught this commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill". It is as common as dirt. Christians in America have not been taught "murder".

Now... getting away from the semantics of it, this goes back to the ineffectiveness of the Church. We taught "thou shalt not kill". And it didn't take.

Christians and others who read the Bible with 21st century eyes and understanding may not make the translation of 'kill' to mean 'murder'. Those who have taken the responsibility to engage in serious Bible study so that they can read at least some of the text through the eyes of those who wrote it will almost always arrive at the correct translation. And we were taught 'thou shalt not murder' which is the law of the land federally and in all 50 states. So it did take.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The man who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, knowing well that thousands of unarmed, innocent women and children would die, was Ok as a Christian to do this? No forgiveness needed? All that death covered by some Christian military exception rule?

I think you guys are making stuff up. I don't think God has forgiven these things, I think you have found excuses for them. I think you guys are part of the very problem I am asking about. I think I can see why the Church is ineffective in America.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Well, if you really understood the Bible, you would also know that the OT was originally written by the Jews, with the first 5 books of the OT being given to the Jews by God in the form of the Torah.

So........knowing that the OT was originally written in Hebrew is helpful.

It's also helpful to know that the OT was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuegent, and that was later translated into Latin and then English. The commandment as originally written in Hebrew was "thou shalt not MURDER", but in the translations from one language to another, it was mistranslated into "thou shalt not kill".

I'm guessing the versions of the Bible that you have are all based on the KJV.

I have and international version and a KJV and one I can't recall of the top of my head. The point being, no matter how far back you trace the Torah or the OT in Hebrew or the NT in Greek, almost all American Churches have taught this commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill". It is as common as dirt. Christians in America have not been taught "murder".

Now... getting away from the semantics of it, this goes back to the ineffectiveness of the Church. We taught "thou shalt not kill". And it didn't take.

Christians and others who read the Bible with 21st century eyes and understanding may not make the translation of 'kill' to mean 'murder'. Those who have taken the responsibility to engage in serious Bible study so that they can read at least some of the text through the eyes of those who wrote it will almost always arrive at the correct translation. And we were taught 'thou shalt not murder' which is the law of the land federally and in all 50 states. So it did take.

No mam, it's not. We have something called man slaughter to cover deaths that are not murders.

I forgive you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have and international version and a KJV and one I can't recall of the top of my head. The point being, no matter how far back you trace the Torah or the OT in Hebrew or the NT in Greek, almost all American Churches have taught this commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill". It is as common as dirt. Christians in America have not been taught "murder".

Now... getting away from the semantics of it, this goes back to the ineffectiveness of the Church. We taught "thou shalt not kill". And it didn't take.

Christians and others who read the Bible with 21st century eyes and understanding may not make the translation of 'kill' to mean 'murder'. Those who have taken the responsibility to engage in serious Bible study so that they can read at least some of the text through the eyes of those who wrote it will almost always arrive at the correct translation. And we were taught 'thou shalt not murder' which is the law of the land federally and in all 50 states. So it did take.

No mam, it's not. We have something called man slaughter to cover deaths that are not murders.

I forgive you.

And bless you my son. We also have something called auto registration and driver's licenses and jay walking and fishing permits and assault and battery, none of which have much to do with the Bible and are also irrelevant as to the correct translation being 'murder'. And you wanting the translation to be 'kill' does not change that.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm not asking about political change. I am asking in specific about personal values of the people in the Church. Despite people in Church in increasing numbers, it does not translate to consistent moral behavior. Consistent being the operative term here. I know that we're all sinners and we all slip. But surely we aren't going to contend that the behavior of Christians, especially on things like killing people and robbing people and adultery, is not to be expected to be better than the heathen? Are we saying that Christians are not supposed to attempt to be better human beings? And that these attempts at being better people should show us a net improvement in moral behavior? If we don't show results in being better people and following Christ teachings, can I expect that what we have is an all out embrace of the "death bed" conversion? Just be a scoundrel all your life and repent at the end?

I don't really buy that brand of Christianity. I believe we have a purpose on Earth and I believe that purpose is given to us to act upon, not to continually excuse ourselves by the wages of sin.

I think it's because Christianity in America has become infotainment, and requires very little in the way of personal sacrifice. It's big business, and the pews are plush and comfortable. It's not about a way of life, it's about showing up occasionally, sitting in a pew, saying the right things, and wearing cute clothes. And, that's about it.

There is very little about taking up the cross and following, or what that really would mean, tangibly speaking. If you piss the sheep off too much, they don't tithe and they fire your butt.

And that is pretty much the take I get, even from my own Church. The most effort I see put into studying scripture is a lot like we see here... finding excuses for bad behavior, rationalizing their acts so that they feel good about themselves. We do have one or two people that do the actual heavy lifting and pick up expired food from the grocery store and take it to the needy. But mostly, it's people looking for excuses and relief from bad behavior.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Christians and others who read the Bible with 21st century eyes and understanding may not make the translation of 'kill' to mean 'murder'. Those who have taken the responsibility to engage in serious Bible study so that they can read at least some of the text through the eyes of those who wrote it will almost always arrive at the correct translation. And we were taught 'thou shalt not murder' which is the law of the land federally and in all 50 states. So it did take.

No mam, it's not. We have something called man slaughter to cover deaths that are not murders.

I forgive you.

And bless you my son. We also have something called auto registration and driver's licenses and jay walking and fishing permits and assault and battery, none of which have much to do with the Bible and are also irrelevant as to the correct translation being 'murder'. And you wanting the translation to be 'kill' does not change that.

Yes, we have a lot of secular laws. I didn't bring them into question. I don't think that your relation of murder laws to the effectiveness of the Church was valid, is the point. And it's not. If you accidentally run over a kid on a bike and kill him, God may well forgive you. The state... maybe not. The two aren't consistent.

Again, I wonder about the morality of all this killing of the innocents lately. There are a lot of dead children and unarmed civilians in the last few years... heck, in our history. Civilian casualties have exponentially increases with advances in war fare. I do wonder where Christian morality is on this. Don't really hear more than a peep about it. In fact, we hear a whole lot of excuses. My Christian values tell me that innocents killed by Christians is unacceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

The man who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, knowing well that thousands of unarmed, innocent women and children would die, was Ok as a Christian to do this? No forgiveness needed? All that death covered by some Christian military exception rule?

I think you guys are making stuff up. I don't think God has forgiven these things, I think you have found excuses for them. I think you guys are part of the very problem I am asking about. I think I can see why the Church is ineffective in America.

How do you know God had a problem with that given that had the bombs not been dropped costing a few hundred thousands their lives, military experts estimated millions more would have been lost had the war continued on. So what would you have chosen? Sacrifice a few hundred thousand to save millions?

Prior to WWI and II, the rise of Japan to a world power was one of the fastest, if not the fastest the world had ever known. And it was a savage, cruel, and brutal regime. 20 million Chinese alone were massacred by the Japanese who also terrorized the Koreans and other Pacific nations. After the bombs were dropped and brought them to unconditional surrender, the 'evil Christian" USA, and other allies helped them rebuild and reorganize under a new Constitution. And Japan is now a peaceful and prosperous nation that no longer terrorizes its neighbors and the Japanese people are free to be the remarkable people that they are.

So you would have allowed the millions of people to continue to be massacred rather than drop the bombs?

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The man who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, knowing well that thousands of unarmed, innocent women and children would die, was Ok as a Christian to do this? No forgiveness needed? All that death covered by some Christian military exception rule?

I think you guys are making stuff up. I don't think God has forgiven these things, I think you have found excuses for them. I think you guys are part of the very problem I am asking about. I think I can see why the Church is ineffective in America.

How do you know God had a problem with that given that had the bombs not been dropped costing a few hundred thousands their lives, military experts estimated millions more would have been lost had the war continued on. So what would you have chosen? Sacrifice a few hundred thousand to save millions?

Prior to WWI and II, the rise of Japan to a world power was one of the fastest, if not the fastest the world had ever known. And it was a savage, cruel, and brutal regime. 20 million Chinese alone were massacred by the Japanese who also terrorized the Koreans and other Pacific nations. After the bombs were dropped and brought them to unconditional surrender, the 'evil Christian" USA, and other allies helped them rebuild and reorganize under a new Constitution. And Japan is now a peaceful and prosperous nation that no longer terrorizes its neighbors and the Japanese people are free to be the remarkable people that they are.

So you would have allowed the millions of people to continue to be massacred rather than drop the bombs?

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

Again with the excuses. Is it "thou shalt not murder" or not?

No one said that being a good Christian was easy. Making excuses seems like a breeze though.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am not seeing a wide divide of conduct or conviction between those who attend a Christian church of whatever denomination on Sunday and their conduct in the world. As Gagafritz mentioned earlier, Christians are no more and no less 'sinners' than anybody else. "Sin" in this case is defined as that which harms ourselves and/or others and/or spoils the perfect creation that God gave us. We are all guilty by 'sins' of omission and commission and at times we all have feet of clay.

But though I know some self-proclaimed Atheists and agnostics who do participate from time to time, I simply don't see ongoing world relief ministries among some of the world's poorest people, or leper colonies, or thrift shops, or soup kitchens, or rehab centers, or homeless shelters, or blood banks, free clinics or hospital auxiliaries, etc. etc. etc. organized, staffed, funded, and maintained by Atheists and agnostics. These are mostly organized, funded, staffed, and operated by mostly Christians.

According to an exhaustive study headed by Arthur Brooks a few years ago, Christians, most especially those who attend church more regularly, are far more likely to contribute to chartieis, far more likely to volunteer, more likely to give blood, more likely to take risks to help others.

The anti-Christian and/or anti-religion crowd may likely focus on the occasional unethical, dishonest, and/or unprincipled person who identifies himself or herself as a Christian. Such people absolutely exist. They exist among Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and every other variety of religion and also among Atheists and agnostics too. They always have and always will.

But those on the inside track who see the big picture know that the Church and the Christians who make it up are absolutely making a difference in relieving suffering and giving a helping hand up and also in providing higher ethics in business and being a stabilizing and positive force in their respective communities - WHEN - Christianity is coupled with a free society.

I think it is no coincidence both in the USA and Mexico and elsewhere that as Christianity has been increasingly criticized and church attendance has declined, corruption and violence have escalated. You can point to no country in which Atheism is the official religious position and/or in which large segments of the population have not been oppressed and denied basic human rights.

People are not anti Christian or anti religous.
They are anti people be they Christian or whatever else.
Your beliefs do not make you a better person, ever.
Only your behavior does.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not seeing a wide divide of conduct or conviction between those who attend a Christian church of whatever denomination on Sunday and their conduct in the world. As Gagafritz mentioned earlier, Christians are no more and no less 'sinners' than anybody else. "Sin" in this case is defined as that which harms ourselves and/or others and/or spoils the perfect creation that God gave us. We are all guilty by 'sins' of omission and commission and at times we all have feet of clay.

But though I know some self-proclaimed Atheists and agnostics who do participate from time to time, I simply don't see ongoing world relief ministries among some of the world's poorest people, or leper colonies, or thrift shops, or soup kitchens, or rehab centers, or homeless shelters, or blood banks, free clinics or hospital auxiliaries, etc. etc. etc. organized, staffed, funded, and maintained by Atheists and agnostics. These are mostly organized, funded, staffed, and operated by mostly Christians.

According to an exhaustive study headed by Arthur Brooks a few years ago, Christians, most especially those who attend church more regularly, are far more likely to contribute to chartieis, far more likely to volunteer, more likely to give blood, more likely to take risks to help others.

The anti-Christian and/or anti-religion crowd may likely focus on the occasional unethical, dishonest, and/or unprincipled person who identifies himself or herself as a Christian. Such people absolutely exist. They exist among Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and every other variety of religion and also among Atheists and agnostics too. They always have and always will.

But those on the inside track who see the big picture know that the Church and the Christians who make it up are absolutely making a difference in relieving suffering and giving a helping hand up and also in providing higher ethics in business and being a stabilizing and positive force in their respective communities - WHEN - Christianity is coupled with a free society.

I think it is no coincidence both in the USA and Mexico and elsewhere that as Christianity has been increasingly criticized and church attendance has declined, corruption and violence have escalated. You can point to no country in which Atheism is the official religious position and/or in which large segments of the population have not been oppressed and denied basic human rights.

People are not anti Christian or anti religous.
They are anti people be they Christian or whatever else.
Your beliefs do not make you a better person, ever.
Only your behavior does.

I agree. But adhering to or living one's beliefs can absolutely affect behavior. For good or for bad.

 

[FA_Q2]

The man who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, knowing well that thousands of unarmed, innocent women and children would die, was Ok as a Christian to do this? No forgiveness needed? All that death covered by some Christian military exception rule?

I think you guys are making stuff up. I don't think God has forgiven these things, I think you have found excuses for them. I think you guys are part of the very problem I am asking about. I think I can see why the Church is ineffective in America.

How do you know God had a problem with that given that had the bombs not been dropped costing a few hundred thousands their lives, military experts estimated millions more would have been lost had the war continued on. So what would you have chosen? Sacrifice a few hundred thousand to save millions?

Prior to WWI and II, the rise of Japan to a world power was one of the fastest, if not the fastest the world had ever known. And it was a savage, cruel, and brutal regime. 20 million Chinese alone were massacred by the Japanese who also terrorized the Koreans and other Pacific nations. After the bombs were dropped and brought them to unconditional surrender, the 'evil Christian" USA, and other allies helped them rebuild and reorganize under a new Constitution. And Japan is now a peaceful and prosperous nation that no longer terrorizes its neighbors and the Japanese people are free to be the remarkable people that they are.

So you would have allowed the millions of people to continue to be massacred rather than drop the bombs?

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

Again with the excuses. Is it "thou shalt not murder" or not?

No one said that being a good Christian was easy. Making excuses seems like a breeze though.

It is easy to call everything an excuse without looking at the actual outcomes and purpose behind such actions. You are taking a world that is very much not black and white and attempting to force it into a black and white viewpoint. You can point to a situation and say that it was not Christian because it broke some vaunted law but without context you are misrepresenting the truth. I do not think that God would take issue that you shot a man if such an action was the only way to stop him from burning a building full of children. There is more to actions than the immediate narrow scope that you are focusing on.

I am not seeing a wide divide of conduct or conviction between those who attend a Christian church of whatever denomination on Sunday and their conduct in the world. As Gagafritz mentioned earlier, Christians are no more and no less 'sinners' than anybody else.

I think that is kind of the point though. By their very nature, Christians should be less apt to sinning than others or what is the point of being a Christian in the first place. I believe that speaks to the vast number of people that call themselves Christian but simply are not. They are just showing up to church because they 'are supposed to.'


No one is expecting perfection but a little showing of actually following the teachings they claim to believe in would be nice.

 

[uscitizen]

Another discussion got me thinking on this and what I'd like to ask the membership here is this:

Why has the church become so ineffective?

Despite over 80% of Americans identifying as Christians and more than 60% attending Church weekly or monthly, how do we account for the great divide in our culture between the idea of morality in Church and the one outside Church. Why can't the Church reach us in a more effective way on issues like abortion, violence, charity and good will? How many people here, on this forum, can tell us that they are Christians? And once they do tell us that, I don't suppose we will find repeated and sustained incidents of vulgarity, profanity and ill will left here in their wake, right?

Why do we leave our values in the pews?

why do we leave our values in the pews?
Because it is the easy thing to do. It is work to like a god christian life.
Being a good christian can be so inconvenient.