Poor, poor Christianity...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don t think that.... at all.

Would not even bring these up except Brother Lee is criticized for it.

What do you think about that Beyoncé worship?

Drake

Understanding you and the nature of this forum, there are two reasons why you would bring up this ridiculous Beyonce worship:

1. You secretly admire Beyonce, and desire to bring the rest of the forum members into your lust for her Jezebel idolatry
2. You desire to distract our attention from your life long exaltation of Witness Lee, his life, and his teachings

Now which is it? We need to know! You know what to do. Tell us right now.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Understanding you and the nature of this forum, there are two reasons why you would bring up this ridiculous Beyonce worship:

1. You secretly admire Beyonce, and desire to bring the rest of the forum members into your lust for her Jezebel idolatry
2. You desire to distract our attention from your life long exaltation of Witness Lee, his life, and his teachings

Now which is it? We need to know! You know what to do. Tell us right now.

There it is again.... button pushing.....

.....toxic.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Drake

Christianity casts a wide net and embraces the orthodox and the heretical, the fundamental and the bizarre, the lovers of Christ and and nominal Christians.

It is not fair to say that Christianity embraces the heretical. That's a contradiction in terms. A religion cannot embrace heretical doctrine. It might be possible for "Christianity" in the popular sense, which is perhaps the sense in which he meant it, but this is not the case in the theological sense. It would be like Trinitarians embracing modalism, or squares embracing triangles.

The problem is not so much a case of imperfection. I don't think anyone today or going back to the disciples will claim that the Church is perfect or that Christians are perfect. Paul saying "Wretched man that I am" comes to mind here.

The problem comes when one person claims to have THE PERFECT answer, and tries to distinguish himself from "Christianity". That is dangerous and borderline cultic.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

It is not fair to say that Christianity embraces the heretical. That's a contradiction in terms. A religion cannot embrace heretical doctrine. It might be possible for "Christianity" in the popular sense, which is perhaps the sense in which he meant it, but this is not the case in the theological sense. It would be like Trinitarians embracing modalism, or squares embracing triangles.

The problem is not so much a case of imperfection. I don't think anyone today or going back to the disciples will claim that the Church is perfect or that Christians are perfect. Paul saying "Wretched man that I am" comes to mind here.

The problem comes when one person claims to have THE PERFECT answer, and tries to distinguish himself from "Christianity". That is dangerous and borderline cultic.

DistantStar,

I believe that it is generally accepted that Christianity encompasses a broad set of Christian groups. But I’ll go along with your train of thought as pertains to this thread because when Brother Lee characterized poor poor Christianity I do not think he really had heretical groups in mind. However, I never considered the Episcopalians being heretical. Did you?

Drake

[Trapped]

Hi Drake,

I think this is a worthy thread topic.

However, the article you provided as a talking point was clearly only written to begin with because it reports on an extreme, abnormal, and repulsive event that is not representative of Christianity. If this kind of situation were at all prevalent in Christianity, it would not be considered “newsworthy” and there would be no article to begin with.

Internet comment sections underneath news articles these days are generally a collection of anti-God sentiments, but even the comments in this article are those of disgust, revile, and sadness. Those in Christianity (poor and otherwise) want nothing to do with this type of gathering, except the severely misguided particular group of attendants (whose number does not even equal 1% of Christians in the U.S. – I am not speaking of Episcopalians in sum, just those attending the event described in the article) who are from, as Ohio pointed out, San Francisco……

Do you have another example you could provide that is more representative of mainstream Christianity?

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi Drake,

I think this is a worthy thread topic.

However, the article you provided as a talking point was clearly only written to begin with because it reports on an extreme, abnormal, and repulsive event that is not representative of Christianity. If this kind of situation were at all prevalent in Christianity, it would not be considered “newsworthy” and there would be no article to begin with.

Internet comment sections underneath news articles these days are generally a collection of anti-God sentiments, but even the comments in this article are those of disgust, revile, and sadness. Those in Christianity (poor and otherwise) want nothing to do with this type of gathering, except the severely misguided particular group of attendants (whose number does not even equal 1% of Christians in the U.S. – I am not speaking of Episcopalians in sum, just those attending the event described in the article) who are from, as Ohio pointed out, San Francisco……

Do you have another example you could provide that is more representative of mainstream Christianity?

Trapped

Hi Trapped,

The second link (Anglican) is another example not related directly to the first (Beyoncé )article.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

So Drake, Do you hate Anglicans or Episcopalians?
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped,

The second link (Anglican) is another example not related directly to the first (Beyoncé) article.

Thanks
Drake

Hi Drake,

Thanks for pointing that second link out; I missed it the first time around.

It is so interesting to me how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. Upon reading it my immediate response was that that article is a great example of Christianity not being poor. I'm not saying that Christianity is 100% healthy without any problems. All I mean here is this seems to be a positive example of Christianity.

Even a healthy human body produces cancer cells. What determines whether the body remains healthy or degrades into a poor condition is whether or not it takes steps to eliminate those cancer cells and keep them from spreading. This article is an example of Christianity having a healthy immune system (or "having a Biblical backbone" as one of the comments said) and recognizing some cancerous non-Biblical actions within itself and taking the steps to help ensure that the cancer cells do not spread. It seems to me that is a healthy thing.

Could you explain what about you felt about the article that supports a poor Christianity viewpoint? Is it that Christianity had to suspend some from within? That happens in the recovery too. Is it that it led to a rift or a division? That also happens in the local churches. At the end of the article the author even states (of the aberrant group) that " It is also likely to become a more isolated and much smaller denomination as well", indicating that this is not representative of Christianity as a whole.

Do you have another example you could provide for discussion?

Trapped

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe that it is generally accepted that Christianity encompasses a broad set of Christian groups. But I’ll go along with your train of thought as pertains to this thread because when Brother Lee characterized poor poor Christianity I do not think he really had heretical groups in mind. However, I never considered the Episcopalians being heretical. Did you?

Perhaps he didn't, but the quote I quoted said that Christianity embraces heresy. That's just nonsensical. Embracing a number of denominations is not the same as embracing heresy. To know what is heresy, you first have to know what is core doctrine. None of the denominations explicitly deny any of these. And as I said, if they do then they are not "Christian denominations" but heretical groups. This is not a "true scotsman" thing. It is simply not Christian, despite what they claim.

But whether Lee had heretical groups in mind, I'll leave you with this:

It is not a matter of the doctrine of the Trinity or of the teaching concerning the local church. It is absolutely a matter of Babylon. To call a pastor “reverend”—that is Babylonian. To set up a Christmas tree and to honor Santa Claus— that is Babylonian. To call yourself by a denominational name, such as Lutheran, Methodist, or Episcopalian—that is Babylonian. All denominational names are Babylonian factors of division and confusion. When Christians see the destruction of the great prostitute at the hands of Antichrist, they will be convinced about the church. Then they will see what the church is and where the church is. They will realize that the church has nothing to do with anything Babylonian. Any group that still practices Babylonian things or holds them is not the pure church.

Isn't he basically saying that all of Christianity (all except the LC of course) is not the "pure Church" and Babylonian. Actually he proves my point. He said "the church has nothing to do with anything Babylonian". He, too, understood that the Church simply cannot contain the heretical and (in his view) the denominations, being Babylon, simply isn't the Church. The problem is with him considering the denominations not part of the true church and thus heretical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

There it is again.... button pushing.....

.....toxic.

No it's you who are TOXIC. You started this contemptuous thread.

You used one idolatrous and obnoxious event in SanFran to characterize all of Christianity -- the entire body of Christ -- as "Poor, Poor, Christianity."

Talk about a snobby, self-righteous -- priggish -- know-it-all characterization of Christians! Take a look in the mirror friend.

Who are you to categorically condemn the entire body of Christ, all professing Christians, aka the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit?

But you take license from W. Lee. He did it regularly, in fact he built his ministry -- a ministry of condemnation -- on his regular diatribes of "poor, poor Christianity."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No it's you who are TOXIC. You started this contemptuous thread.

You used one idolatrous and obnoxious event in SanFran to characterize all of Christianity -- the entire body of Christ -- as "Poor, Poor, Christianity."

Talk about a snobby, self-righteous -- priggish -- know-it-all characterization of Christians! Take a look in the mirror friend.

Who are you to categorically condemn the entire body of Christ, all professing Christians, aka the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit?

But you take license from W. Lee. He did it regularly, in fact he built his ministry -- a ministry of condemnation -- on his regular diatribes of "poor, poor Christianity."

Toxic. Button pushing.