What is the future of Christianity?

sasa · 05-10-2005, 01:26 PM

Is there any future of Christianity at all? The teachings of Christianity were limited to the people of that time. Jesus said "if you are slapped on one side of your face, offer the other side of the face too." This teaching certainly is not applicable in today's society. Isn't it enough to prove that the teachings were limited to that certain time period?
So can the Christian world survive just by acting on the teachings of Christianity at all?

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sasa

Is there any future of Christianity at all? The teachings of Christianity were limited to the people of that time. Jesus said "if you are slapped on one side of your face, offer the other side of the face too." This teaching certainly is not applicable in today's society. Isn't it enough to prove that the teachings were limited to that certain time period?
So can the Christian world survive just by acting on the teachings of Christianity at all?

That teaching is extremely applicable today. Though not accepted or followed in today's society, it is as true today as it was when it was originally written (and it goes back further than Christianity). Ghandi changed the world with this teaching. So did Martin Luther King, Jr. Christianity will survive when it recognizes and follows the teachings of Jesus in their fullness. However, Christianity will falter in the face of more modern expressions of its central teachings when other "faiths" or ideologies better epitomize those teachings.

sasa · 05-10-2005, 01:52 PM

Would any Christian dominated country allow a different country to attack them and destroy them. I don't think so. It is just simply not applicable. If they do it, it will be disasterous for them.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sasa

Would any Christian dominated country

There's no such thing as a "Christian-dominated country" if you define Christianity as adherence to the teachings of Jesus. "Christian-dominated" is an oxymoron.

KnightoftheRose · 05-10-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

So can the Christian world survive just by acting on the teachings of Christianity at all?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you implying that Western governments are Christian? Because the West is fairly secular, y'know, and rarely acts on Christian teachings. But if you mean Christianity itself - well, its continuing growth would suggest Christianity can survive just fine.

Quote:

Would any Christian dominated country allow a different country to attack them and destroy them. I don't think so. It is just simply not applicable. If they do it, it will be disasterous for them.

For the individual, turning the other cheek is applicable. For the government, defense of its citizens is an obligation. Further, Jesus himself told his apostles to go out and sell their cloaks for swords, cuz he wasn't going to be with them much longer. Self-defense is clearly justified in the Bible.

sasa · 05-10-2005, 02:19 PM

So that makes it quite contradictory. on one instance, the self defence is allowed and on the other instance it is advised to offer your other cheek as well.

sasa · 05-10-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightoftheRose

.

For the individual, turning the other cheek is applicable.

What if some one literally punches you. Would you allow him to punch you on your other cheek as well.

Jesus was a great prophet but for that particular period and people of Israel.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sasa

So that makes it quite contradictory. on one instance, the self defence is allowed and on the other instance it is advised to offer your other cheek as well.

No. If you follow the teachings of Christ you always try to offer the other cheek. States/Nations aren't capable of being "Christian" in the sense being discussed in this thread. They are human, political institutions with division and violence inherent in their very nature. "Christian government" is also an oxymoron.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sasa

What if some one literally punches you. Would you allow him to punch you on your other cheek as well.

Why is the person punching me?

sasa · 05-10-2005, 02:33 PM

So what about if some one slaps at your face. I think then the teaching is not applicable. The best teaching in that instance will be that you are allowed to take the revenge but not a single point more, but it will be better for you if you forgive him if it does not cause an increase in the violence.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sasa

So what about if some one slaps at your face. I think then the teaching is not applicable. The best teaching in that instance will be that you are allowed to take the revenge but not a single point more, but it will be better for you if you forgive him if it does not cause an increase in the violence.

That's fine. It just means you don't agree with the nonviolence teachings of Jesus. You don't have to. And you're in a lot of company. Almost nobody accepts them.

Personally, I think that the teaching is correct. Violence creates a neverending cycle of violence unless someone has the love and courage to take the violence without seeking retribution. Revenge heals no wounds. Love heals them all.

sasa · 05-10-2005, 03:00 PM

My point of discussion here is not intended to anger any one. I am actually a person who believes that if religious discussion is done just for the sake of arguments, then no one actually gets any where. I believe Jesus to be one the great prophets of God who was sent into the world for the people of Israel. His teachings are not applicable now, but they were the most beautiful teachings if we see them in the context of the period when Christ was sent. The followers of Jesus were small in number and Jews were in the majority and at that time followers of Jesus weren't in a position of taking revenge. Hence the teachings could not have been any better for that time scale.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 03:03 PM

I don't think anyone is getting angry. I think we have a difference of opinion, but that's part of the dialogue. Personally, I think the teachings of Jesus (most if not all) are as applicable today as they were when the gospels were written. In particular, the teaching you used as an example has had a profound influence on me and many others both today and in the last century as seen by the examples of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Abogado del Diablo · 05-10-2005, 03:08 PM

So back to the question in the title of this thread: the future of Christianity is quite safe. The future of the Christian churches will depend on their willingness to teach and follow the teachings of Jesus. If someone else does, and the Church doesn't, people will go elsewhere and the Church will be obsolete.

The sheep know the shepherd's voice.

sasa · 05-10-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Personally, I think that the teaching is correct. Violence creates a neverending cycle of violence unless someone has the love and courage to take the violence without seeking retribution. Revenge heals no wounds. Love heals them all.

Absolutely, Love does heal all the wounds. But the teachings of Christ do not allow you to take revenge if it aggravates the violence. The teachings were the most beautiful for that time period but not for today.
On the other hand, Islamic teachings are the perfect for any individual or a nation on whole if followed.
Once again I would like to emphasize on the point that I am not here to hurt any one's feelings.
Thanks.