heh! that little c guy might be moi. i might as well do my duty and get the ball rollin. by small c christian, i only mean that I don't wear it on my sleeve, so to speak.

i live and let live, and assume God'll sort it all out when the time comes.

my morals are christian-based 2b sure, but i won't wave my bible when i'm hollerin about some injustice. i keep it in my head and heart and let my actions act as my tool of conversion (if there be any juice in that wand).

that said, i have to say it's not a matter of big 'T' "TRUTH" -- it's about FAITH. and faith is a very personal thing.

You gotta love "progressives" They just wanna be loved and not judged, so they'll do all of society a favor, and redifine everything that civilized people hold near and dear.

Good post.

Jesus asks us to be meek, to turn the other cheek, and that sometimes our lives will seem bleak. The continued existence of being in and not of the world can get tiring, where those nice soft worldly cushions look more appealing than the straight and narrow.

While you will see polls showing the US to be a "Christian" nation (75%?), I'm guessing that people who are committed Jesus lovers would be under 15%. The press loves to pick them apart, and the "Christians" who aren't in that

define "progressive." and what's the "wanna be loved" deal about? wuts the diff between one groupthink and another?

I'll take a stab at defining progressive:

Jesus (Yeshua Ben Maryum)- spoke against legalism in religion, healed on the Sabbath, communed with lepers, tax collectors, female sinners, and the poor, called a temple a den of thieves, had female confidants, eschewed material focus.

I am in total agreement with you. There's nothing that irks me more than people who claim to follow Christ, but show no evidence of it, and have no knowledge of him. Every day, I strive to be the complete opposite of that.

memer you're everwhere ! I would define progressives as those people who want to do away with traditional values and institutions for their own nihilistic desires. "wanna be loved" was just a little joke to underline the philosophy behind the progressives mind set. No matter what depraved activity they engage in, no one, especially christians should pass judgement on them. We should only accept, and integrate them into every aspect of our lives. The differences in group think could be singled out by the good or evil that results in following the dogma of whatever group.

Bijan, you make me howl! You're just as bad a disturber as moi

Hey, E, yes, I'm omipresent today (can you tell I have a light load today ). If that's your definition of progressive Christians, then, whew! i'm not one of those.

Even if you do not pass judgement, doesn't mean you can't vote your own personal conscience (guided by whatever you deem holy).

I don't think it's only the fear of the confrontational aspect of being a Christian that has given birth to the "mamby-pamby" movement. I think it's also America's perveted view of "personal responsibility"... "Your choices are fine for you" is taught in our schools, tv shows and by pop idols. It's frustrating that my own mother has started reciting it when I disagree with her.

Sometimes there is confrontation, but I find more often it's the opposite - simple exclusion - at the mere mention of the idea to worldly friends that morals aren't relative. We're raised in a big wide world that says they are, and that's an easy sell. Even those of us "born in a pew" enjoy some benefits of a society that cheaply sells such wide and appealing choices in socially acceptable entertainment, style, and living arrangements. Start suggesting moral absolutism in your social circles, and watch how quickly your calendar frees up.

"Your choices are fine for you" is a comfy couch to have to get off of when you realize God's running a kingdom, not a democracy, and that the definition of "sin" is as simple as "failure to obey God". "Go ye therefore into all the world..." is a stark change from the popular advice of, "just do your own thing".

Even as I pray for direction in my own life, I crumble pretty easily when the answer comes back and isn't as fun as sitting on the couch and watching a football game some Saturday, instead of going to a prayer meeting. That's not fear of confrontation... that's spiritual laziness in the face of more comfortable options.

Bijan you're right in what really should e deemed progressive, but that's not what I'm referring to.

I am by most standards extremely out of the box when it comes to my thinking about how the church should look today. Part of this is because of the generation I represent. I am a non-traditionalist by many standards. That said, I still realize that in an attempt to be "progressive" and culturally "relevant" we can take things too far in our attempts to be non-traditionalists. "Too far" takes place when we start ignoring what the Bible says and just doing what we wanna do. One of the issues of "progression" that irks me is all this talk about homosexuality being genetic (i.e. the gay gene), another example can be found by those who espouse the "intersex doctrine" that states that God did not create specifications of gender on the earth (read: if you have a penis, but you think you should've had a vagina, then by all means, get a vagina, and act like you have one too!). What's worse, they will use scripture to back this up.

The "Wanna be loved" mentality was really just referring to the fact that most of humanity walks around looking for approval and validation from other people. This is not always a bad thing, but oftentimes, it's the mentality that allows people to water down their own conviction for the sake of being accepted. We're not in this world to be accepted by the masses.

Ambra, I love you !

Yes, yes, yes! Me, too, Ambra .

What Eric said...

This is not a political party folks, this is they Way the Truth and the Life.

I agree that American Christianity is pretty
"mamby-pamby." But that is where the agreement ends. I find it telling that one of the two major threats you cite is "gay marriage." Not. Even. Close.
The reason American Christianity is so "mamby-pamby" is because it has become too aligned with the wealthy, the powerful, the comfortable... How many "conservative" Christians actually follow the lessons in Acts 4:32-35: "All the believers were one in heart and mind." No one claimed that any of his possesions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
The scripture goes on to tell the story of Ananias and Sapphira who were struck down dead when they withheld money for themselves and lied about it. I guess they followed what I call "Republican Christianity."

Great post, Ambra. I'm so glad Donna led me to your blog!

Joe,

I didn't argue that American Christianity became "Mamby-pamby" because of the gay marriage debate. Read my words carefully please.

BTW, is this the only subject you chime in on?

Actually, I commented in the "Shortcuts to Fame" thread as well... so, no. But you have to admit that you do bring up gays quite a bit... so, maybe I should ask you the same question.

And my comment on gay marriage was quite tangential this time... The crux of my comment was on the social justice aspect (oooh, yes, i used the "progressive" buzz words "social justice"). Conservative Christians are too busy hoarding their wealth building mega church complex communities with malls... all the better to stay safe in their cocoons...

Joe, quite seriously, per the gay issue (one of course about which you are understandibly hyper-sensitive) I really could discuss it a lot more than I do. Reading this comment from you is pretty much predictable.

And per the mega church myth: in actuality, the majority of the body of Christ does not convene in mega churches. Although it doesn't seem it, "mega churches" are actually the minority in the US. The average American church is struggling financially (although it really shouldn't, but that's another post....). There are more (and bigger) "mega-churches" in third world countries than there are in the U.S. But of course, TBN would tell you otherwise. Anyway, just thought I'd point at that your "issue" is pretty much null when it comes to the facts...

Ambra...

Give me a break... I never claimed that the majority of Christians convene in mega churches... again, you ignore the main point of my post (for the second time): that many (not all) conservative Christians ignore the social justice aspects of the Gospel... again, I don't see mainstream Christianity seriously trying to follow the model of Christian living modelled in the book of Acts... nah, that's too "socialistic"... and we all know Jesus was a free-market capitalist who favored lower taxes and kicking the whiny unemployed (yeah, they're ALL lazy) off the government dole...

American Christianity is "mamby-pamby" because it has become to cozy with wealth and power... "guns and gays" though, is a GREAT strategy to get the vote out for the GOP base... sadly, it works all too well.

Joe, I didn't address your comment because you started off on the wrong premise of my argument. Based on the past nature of your comments here, you generally grab whatever anti-gay statement I make and frame your argument with it. In regards to your argument, I'll just respectfully dissent.

I agree that Christians could stand to get in the trenches (as could Republicans, which I've made quite clear) however, there is no such thing as "Republican Christianity".

Point being, I never explicitly stated my perceived reasons for Christianity turning "Mamby-pamby", although my suspicions point towards a declining moral standard of society, and not the "lack of social justice" as you state.

Hm. Still, it's a good point jab raises.

I never explicitly stated my perceived reasons for Christianity turning "Mamby-pamby"

Well, no time like the present, I guess. Why not wade into the pool a little deeper.

my suspicions point towards a declining moral standard of society, and not the "lack of social justice"

What's the diff? Can't one say that the sliding moral standards leads to the lack of social justice?

p.s. aww, let 'er have her hobby horse.

In life, the wise person will always look for the tradeoff that is the natural resultant of any action. One must therefore ask him or herself what the trade offs are of are political/economic construct. One of the answers to that is our spiritualism. You cannot have a society that promotes individual freedom, separated church from state and have an economic system that is energized via the sins of greed and gluttony and expect their not be a moral spiritual tradeoff or weakening of that society.

Truth be told, If Christians or “followers of Christ” were as orthodox and committed as followers of other religions, then America would be guilty of what we accuse other nations of devout religious followers to be guilty of…repression. Orthodox religious worship is a cancer to capitalism health, because no religion prescribes materialism and greed and gluttony as the path of righteousness. Thus, to become truly more Christian or followers of Christ, the nation would have to sacrifice its economic status. When confronted with such an option, one quickly finds what the American true places at the top of their allegiances…and it is not God. People have distorted and contorted religion so that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hence, people will define and interpret scripture in a way that allows then to continue to enjoy the fruits of a greedy and gluttonous system. Religion has thus become subjective (to interpretation) and not an objective blueprint for living. When religion is subjective, is ceases to represent Gods will, which is objective

memer, the dif is, morality is the foundation of social justice. You can have morality w/o social justice,but you can't have social justice w/o morality.

I have to agree with Ambra. What if we all went around telling others we were "followers of Christ", we would probably get some funny looks. But that said, we as Christians I think have been taught to thinjk that our views are too extreme and outdated. Let's be careful to remember, being "progressive" isn't always better. Hitler was pretty progressive in his own right. Also, why I disagreed with what Joe said. I think the issue of materialism is something that has been creeping into Christian doctrine and it is something that needs to be addressed. I myself have seen it and it disgusts me to the core

Moderation in all things.

First off, just read what Noah wrote.

Also, I think moral relativsim is to blame for much of the degeneration of Christian thought. Today, it's "choose your own adventure" Christianity. Wanna be a pedophile and a Christian? Sure! Why not? Secular society has boundaries in decreasing measure, most unfortunately, so follows the church.

We are all subject to the creeping in of all types of thoughts and ideas that oppose scripture on a regular basis. Just turn on the television. We live in a society that consistantly (and flagrantly) mocks the idea of "righteousness". Many Christians are not strong enough to withstand this, and they crumble under the weight of opposition of everything they know to be true.

The materialism issue is big and also a problem for the church. But it's also a big problem for America. There is nothing wrong with having "things", however, it's the exaltation of those "things" as God that gets us in trouble.

Very good post Ambra.

And Jonathan....great comments,..I agree 100% with you....:)

And agreed, good words Jonathan.

I agree 100% with this post.

I'm just appreciative that I go to a bible teaching, bible believing Church where you aren't given the right to be 'comfortable' in your present state. My pastor instructs in the gospel, making sure to keep us all set on the goal of 'Christlikeness', and you WILL be convicted of your transgressions when he does it!

My problem is more with churches that serve to 'entertain' the Body of Christ with fiery hoop-n-holler sermons and acroamatic analogies instead of actually equipping them through edification and instruction in the gospel of Christ. I find that these churches seem to be the greatest harborers of the 'secular' 'c'hristian (and their leadership reflects this).

Perhaps the greatest weapon is for Christians to speak with the leadership of our co-laborers in the gospel and point them in the right direction (the oil should run down the beard of the high priest from there).

As a Christian (gasp!), same-gender-loving, Black woman I do take issue with most of what you say in your post.

Just as you are offended by people (like myself, probably) claiming to be Christians, I too am offended by many aspects (beyond their views on sexuality) of conservative Christianity. I often find myself having to say that I am not, "one of THOSE types of Christians."

As the first commenter said, there is a very big difference between Truth and Faith. I do not claim to know the Truth, but I do know that I am an incredibly faithful person.

We live in a society that consistantly (and flagrantly) mocks the idea of "righteousness"

Hm. I guess most secular tv since the Leave It To Beaver daze could be seen as "immoral" in some way. I watch a show like, "Punk'd" which gets jollies by putting people in really embarrassing situations and watching them squirm, and I think to myself, I really shouldn't be guffawing about any of this.

But the fact that you enjoy it too, Ambra, makes me feel a whole lot better about it. So, where does one draw the line between Christian-worthy programming and non-Christian-worthy programming? Is the vast majority of television really that aborrent to honest Christians?

I do suppose that if there's one Howard Stern-like show on tv somewhere, even while all the rest are tame "Everybody Loves Raymond" shows, one could still say there's "consistently" some programming that mocks "righteousness" but is it anything really to be alarmed about?

Is this all really about Sex-as-root-of-all-evil? Can we chart somehow if there's been any significant rise in the seven deadly sins (excessive pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, sloth)? Is there a significant rise in the number of avowed Christians who think pedophilia (! good heavens, Ambra) is acceptable?

Not yet convinced the sky is falling.

p.s. the Chu'ch is supposed to be well above American capitalism

I love the fact how people feel the comfort in calling themselves that title "Ch...you know the rest" yet not adhere to the righteous(as defined by scripture) standards of living.
I am reminded of this wonderful passage of scripture (if you get a chance to check it out please do John 6:53-666 where Jesus breaks down to his "Christian" followers that unless a person eats his flesh and drinks his blood they have no part in him! Now this was a truly repulsive statement that offended the Jewish mind! Jesus then broke down how it is the spirit that breaths life into his words and gives illumination to his teachings and how the flesh(carnality self will, hedonism, self centered soul driven living) profits nothing!
He also declared that it is the Father in heaven who draws (brings people to the revelation that Jesus is the
Christ(the authorized endorsed one that is worthy to die for the sins of all humanity), the only way to God in heaven, (no other options no plan B's and no alternate routes) and no one will walk with him(Jesus) and be able to remain unless this truth is present!

It was at that time see
John6:66 (Wonderful number) that lays out how at that time many "Christians" left his mega church, did not want anymore of his seminars and disassociated(walked no more with him)
An interesting saying in itself(walking with Jesus) being our culture loves this strange man-made doctrine of "Jesus Walks" that portrays Jesus as walking with us no matter what our life is like(but that is another story)!
This passage I believe illustrates a beautiful picture of what is like in our present age!

The cost of discipleship is great and laying up with another man as a man or laying with another woman as a woman does indeed afford you the right to call yourself a "Christian" but I ask the question where in Scripture does Jesus tell his followers in the "Great Commission" to go make "Chrisitians"? Someone help me find that passage!
And do all Christians go to heaven? Does Jesus say at his judgement seat well done good and Christian enter in?
Just some food for thought! Any takers?

Speaking of the cost of discipleship, read Luke 9:59-60. Jesus in effect told the disciple that His (Jesus') mission was more important than a commandment (honor thy mother and thy father).

And to answer your question, Advocate, the disciples were first called 'Christians' at Antioch far after Jesus was crucified (I think you can find it in Acts). So, Jesus never would've used the term 'Christian' while he was alive. He never is recorded as explicitly saying "I am Christ", so it would've been awkward and contrary to the messianic passages in the OT (that point to the idea that the Messiah would not announce himself as the Messiah) for him to call himself, or his followers, 'Christian'.

In short, this is a label that has been applied by secular entities, although it still carries with it a charge to be in search of Christ-likeness.

Sorry for the theological rant.

Wow! Gettin' hot in here...

Alex,
Your last paragraph seems to come closest to addressing the heart of my comments!
I commented(I hope you are now aware) using a sarcastic play on words.
I am well aware that"Christian" was used in Antioch and by the "secular entities"
as you call it. And I also recognize that it was used as a derogatory term to the followers of Christ. Present day it would be like saying "You little(mini) Christ's(little messiahs)"in a manner of speaking!
Yet
I am still in search of an answer to my questions! (The obvious answers being...)?

Advocate, if you are defining 'Christian' in the sense that Ambra has, I would argue that the greater majority of those Christians WILL go to Heaven.

Otherwise, I would argue that the people who are labelled 'Christians' aren't Christian at all. Going to church makes you about as Christian as standing in a garage makes you a car.

Now we are getting warmer... Any other thinkers?

What would be the difference, if any Ambra, between your "Follower of Jesus" and a "Fundamentalist Christian"?

I have read several of the posted messages and some of the things I have read are very scary. I would first like to tackle the question about someone being gay. I don't think any of us on this panel is qualified to say if being gay is a choice or not. because as long as there as been recorded history there have been gay people and for me personally its hard to explain why someone would ostracize themselves from their family or their love ones especially in a climate of intolerance of the 1900's etc. If there is a so-called gay gene or not I am not qualified to say, I wonder if anyone is. As far as gay marriage is concerned I believe this is a tradition that should be kept between a man and woman. However, I think we should have some type of domestic partnership laws so people can see love ones in the hospital for example, or be able to be the guardian of their estate. I think this is a reasonable solution what do other people on the panel think?

ummm, I may be speaking out of turn because i only read the first two paragraphs of your post, and none of the comments, but what sect of christianity are you addressing exactly?

I cant say I disagree with what I think is your theme as far as most sects go, but I know of some sects that are very conservative and try to follow biblical teachings as closely as possible. Namely the Primitive Baptists, who as thier name implies, make no excuse for not being "progressive", they put the emphasis on serving the Lord as the Lord instructs us via the bible, they refer to the King James version of the bible as the latest acceptable translation.

kthanx, I will now read the rest of your post and whatever comments seem nominally worthwhile.

Advocate asked:
I ask the question where in Scripture does Jesus tell his followers in the "Great Commission" to go make "Chrisitians"? Someone help me find that passage!
And do all Christians go to heaven? Does Jesus say at his judgement seat well done good and Christian enter in?
Just some food for thought! Any takers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Advocate, the well known passage at the end of of Matthew should suffice as to your first question:

28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;

28:20
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you...

They were first called Christians at Antioch because they followed Christ, but the bottom line is that the mandate above still stands.
--------------

As for all Christians being saved, I think that is the case provided they were indeed true Christians and not fakers, or people who express mere mental agreement with the gospel without really believing. A general belief "in God" does not cut it either according to the scriptures. The great safeguard against lip service is the possession of the Spirit of God. Anyone can CLAIM to be a Christian, and anyone can show up in church, but Romans 8 pins the matter down thus:

8:8
and they that are in flesh cannot please God.
8:9
But *ye* are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed God's Spirit dwell in you; but if any one has not the Spirit of Christ *he* is not of him:

It is quite possible that a real, converted, believing Christian may become a serial killer, or a homosexual, or whatever, but this does not affect his eternal salvation. He is saved from eternal judgement. Period. He will likely of course, pay the price for such behavior in this life, and also he will have to give an account of it an the judgement seat.
------------

As to the judgement seat, 2 Corinthians 5 is the most applicable scripture, although the parable of the 10 talents can be brought in:

5:9
Wherefore also we are zealous, whether present or absent, to be agreeable to him.

5:10
For we must all be manifested before the judgment-seat of the Christ, that each may receive the things done in the body, according to those he has done, whether it be good or evil.

It seems that every Christian will have to give an account of himself. The Judgement Seat is NOT, repeat, NOT, the penal Final Judgement at the Last Day as shown in Revelation 20: 11-15. The Final Judgement is for the unsaved and the lost. The Judgement Seat however is for those who are saved.

Questions will be raised- What fruit did you bear? How did you use the talents given you by the master? Why was your conduct not in accord with the scriptures? Why did you lie, steal, or whatever on such and such a date? Nothing will be hidden. There will be no excuses, because Christ not only knows all the details but also the motives.

It will be a searching time, perhaps a very u

reply to Advocate:
THE JUDGEMENT SEAT continued......
___________________

It will be a searching time, perhaps a very unpleasant and embarrasing time, but as far as I can see there is no punitive judgement. It will be a searching, detailed life review. Rewards will be apportioned according to one's deeds. The parable of the talents comes in here- the just and faithful were placed over many cities. Perhaps this may foreshadow the Christian's place in the world to come, otherwise known as the 1000 year millenium, for Christians will live and rule with Christ during that 1000 years, as the Book of Revelation, Chap 20 shows. This is the first resurrection. exactly when the judgment seat interview takes place is not mentioned by scripture. It could be at the Christian's death, (the near-death experiences of people in many books speaks of a divine being who conducts a life review- perhaps a foreshadowing of some sort), OR it could be prior to the millenium. Scripture is silent, but the bottom line is, that it will take place for the believer.

The judgement seat will also be a time of education and reflection. The Lord may point out a particular incident where you failed badly, but through the failure, you grew spiritually and morally. Something like this is not hard to grasp. Everyone in their life can point to some unpleasant experience, that in the end made them a stronger, better person. The good thing about the judgement seat is that you wil actually get credit for the good you did and the learning that you made. It is not so in real life. In real life you may do a lot of good and no one knows, or cares or they may even hate you for it. Not so for the Christian. He will get credit, where credit is due.

Scripture is very sketchy on the details of the judgement seat (a few verses), and if that is the case, human commentary will needs be limited. But the judgement seat is not something for Christians to trifle with. I once ran into a college professor who spoke expansively about "sinning boldly" because in the end, it made no difference, you were saved anyway. As Mr. T would say "Pity the fool.."

Imagine standing before a judge and having every private detail of your life exposed- every thought, every cruelty, every lie. It is no joke. Every believer will be called to account. As Paul says in 2 Cor 5, vs 9, NOW is the time to be acceptable to him. NOW is the time to ensure that when that searching life review is undertaken, that you stood for something, that you did live in accordance with the faith, despite your failures.
--------

There are many who would simply wave away these considerations and "sin boldly" at the present time, and there are many who simply wave away the entire Christian faith. So be it. They are free to do so, but choices made now will have consequences in time to come.

ok, having read the post, and well over half of the posts (skimming the rest for codewords).

While my previous post is a blatant plug, i dont apologize for it at all.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit to probably being more of a little c than a Capital C. Not in that I vote for pro-choice candidates or pro gay marriage candidates, but in the fact that my study of the bible and attendance to church, much less my observance of what the bible dictates as correct behavior is less than mediocre.

My point being that I realize this is a shortcoming of myself, and dont try to rationalize it as being due to some other reason. My minister once said something to the effect of ' we will never be threatened by people sinning and repenting, but when people sin and think they are doing nothing wrong, we are in serious trouble'....

I do not think he was aware of Jonathan swift, or his similar statements.

Just to follow up on Alex and the Advocate's comments, it seems to me from my biblical observation that the distinguishing factor between Christians and non-christians were their actions. Most of what Paul did was in his actions and that is how most people identified him along with other Believers. Furthermore, it seems to me that there were never any qualifying "titles" that made someone more rightous than others. True, there are as many Christians as there are types of cars (couldn't think of a better analogy), but servanthood to Christ is someting that these "new/progressive" Christians can't address.

Enrique,
As far as the "eternal salvation" comment, too much to say and not the appropriate message board to do so. But in short, not scriptural doesnt fly. There are Christians that can lose their salvation, salvation is a process and a continual race otherwise Paul would never make statements such as "contending for the faith" as well as running his race with focus beating his body into submission so that he was not "disqualified". These as well as hundreds of other references like the Master Jesus himself saying many will come to him in that day and say Lord did I not (Do this do that cast out heal this person or other) and he will reply DEPART FROM ME I NEVER KNEW YOU YOU WORKER OF INIQUITY! No one can heal the sick and cast out demons in the name of Jesus unless they were once walking with him! Somewhere along the way they made decisions that disqualified them.
That is what I make of the eternal salvation comment!
As far as the other things like the Judgment Seat for the most part I do believe what you have observed, I do however wonder when using the Parable of the Talents why is it that the person who buried their talent is rebuked, their talent is taken away, and they are called wicked and lazy and thrust out to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth! That does not sound, eternally positive to me!
Just some thought...

Advocate- I don't think I can agree with you there on eternal salvation. The only way I see in scripture for a believer to lose their salvation is if they become an apostate- that is- giving up the faith. Hebrews 6 is the scripture that deals with apostasy, and falling away. Once you are saved, you are saved.

Let's say a young man is converted, believes with all his heart, but led astray through unjudged lust, becomes a homosexual. He is in a sinful condition, and may well pay for it down the road, but his eternal salvation is still assured. You can't be saved today, and unsaved tomorrow. If that were the case Christianity would be a very unstable faith. See my example of the Apostle Paul below.

That is why the Christian has the Spirit of God to help him, and Romans 6, 7 and 8 shows the struggles that the Apostle Paul himself went through before he found peace. Paul himself made some bad decisions- such as shaving his head and fasting with the Jews in an effort to fit in with them. The result for him was a Roman prison. Yet it was from that prison experience that the most powerful Epistles in the Bible came. He did not lose his eternal salvation because of that bad decision, nor did Peter who denied knowing Jesus when the heat was on.

Now a bad decision will take you out of the practical enjoyment of Christianity. You may become a barren, corrupt, unproductive believer because of bad decisions. But if you are truly a believer, as opposed to a mere church attender or faker, once you are saved, you are saved. Period.

Salvation is a continuous process in the sense that we are always exposed to attacks or temptation and should always strive to do better, and that yes, we will make mistakes, and will need to be restored and recovered. I agree with you there. But this has to be distinguished from the atoning work of Christ on the cross. That is a one-time work. It does not have to be repeated 24/7. Unless you become an apostate, once you are saved, you are saved, one time. Hebrews 7, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, backs up what I am saying:
verse: 27
"who has not day by day need, as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, then for those of the people; for this he did once for all in having offered up himself... "

The atoning work on the cross is a one-time deal, open to all. It is not here today, and gone tomorrow. Everybody will not accept it of course, and many wave it away, but that is the deal presented in the scriptures.

I see what you are saying on the talents. How come the guy who went and hid the talent gets the shaft? Well, one lesson is that God is sovereign. If He gives something and you don't respond, He has every right to take it away and give it to somebody else who will get the job done. If you or I are unsatisfied with a bank we would do the same- give our money to someone else. That is a positive thing, the power to put your wealth and energy where it will yield the greatest

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE continued...

That is a positive thing, the power to put your wealth and energy where it will yield the greatest results. If it is good enough for you and I, surely it is the perogative of God, creator of the universe.

The parable may sound negative but actually it is very positive when you look at it. What it also shows is that people who are getting the job done, and who are faithful will be rewarded. Credit will be given where credit is due.

It is totally unlike the world where people will laugh at you for doing good, or where some people do all the work, while others lazily kick back and do nothing while sharing in the rewards. Anyone who has spent any kinda time in a job knows what I mean. The lazy, kick-back guy may get the same pay raise as the hard-working guy. The parable of the talents shows that God will have none of this nonsense in the world to come. That to me is VERY positive.

Enrique, what's up with the titles on your comments? Are you cutting and pasting an essay you wrote? Are you engaging in dialogue? Or are you trying to be the next Bonehoffer? When it comes down to it, what you're arguing the "once saved always saved" doctrine, which scripturally, I can't get behind. You and "advocate" can keep up the discussion a little while longer, otherwise, I say take it offline because it's going a direction the post was not intended to provoke.

Denmark: I'm sorry you're afraid. I fear if you stick around, it might get worse.

Memer: You are getting at what I was referring to, but on the minute level. Overall, many aspects of our society mock righteousness. Take for example, the concept of sexual virginity and the stigma attached by society. The concept of marriage is mocked daily on television. Women in film who don't take their clothes off in some form are a rare and not written in. Just some examles..

Joel: I'm not referring to ANY "sect" of Christianity. I'm referring to the church at large; everyone who professes to be a "Christian".

Nappi: Define "Conservative Christianity".

Jim: you wrote: "What would be the difference, if any Ambra, between your "Follower of Jesus" and a "Fundamentalist Christian"?"

A fundamentalist Christian is a term we created, whereas a follower of Jesus Christ is a term the Bible uses. The idea of "Fundamentalism" has morphed into its own set of doctrine and rules (scripturally based of course). The idea itself breeds people to pledge allegience to "fundamentalism" instead of to Christ himself. I believe the true followers of Jesus will counter the culture in many ways. I think Jesus was more controversial and innovative than Fundamentalists (and everyone else) gave him credit for. The whole idea of fundamentalism seems rather married to legalistic tradition. More emphasis on the law, less on the God of the law.

Ambra,
My dictionary defines the following words as follows:

Christ: The Messiah as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Christian: One who believes in Jesus as the Christ.

Christianity: The religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Christmas: A holiday created by Wal-Mart in order to improve sales of thingys. (just kidding)

Fundamentalist: A religious point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, and by a rigid adherence to those principles, often by intolerance of other views.

Do you generally agree with these definitions? If not would you correct them so we can all communicate using the same 'language'.

Yeah, I was wondering when the hijacking was going to end. I want to get back to some "better" off-topic stuff: so back to the tv thing, A :-)

We can always find examples of fraud, murder, slander and other bad stuff, including "immoral" tv. That I'll never contest.

What we have to wonder is if this is on the rise in some alarming way? What percentage of immoral programming (or percentage increase) is the number to watch out for? What is the standard -- does "Punk'd" count (why or why not?)?

Is it only sex-related imagery or storylines that count? Or does stuff around the other deadly sins count, too?

Anyway, this may be better suited to a full post at a later date.

Back on topic. Earlier you said:
I never explicitly stated my perceived reasons for Christianity turning "Mamby-pamby"

and I said,

Well, no time like the present, I guess. Why not wade into the pool a little deeper.

(don't make me hafta repeat myself )

Jim: I'll respond to each...

My dictionary defines the following words as follows:

Christ: The Messiah as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures.
agreed.

Christian: One who believes in Jesus as the Christ.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. While this should be the case, too few people draw correlations between "believing in Jesus as Christ" and working it out in lifestyle. These days, it is permissible to say one believes this, but yet live a life according to our own fleshly desires. Biblically, this is not true belief or faith because without works, it's dead. So while the definition sounds good, relative to our current society, I'd say the word "Christian" means too many things to too many people. But yes, when I use it, I am referring to the definition you gave, but with my own caveat that "belief" means more than just words and gushy feelings.

Christianity: The religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Agreed 'round these parts. Although I believe that within the realm of "Christianity" we have created manmade denominations and philosophies that are incorrect and bastardly.

Christmas: A holiday created by Wal-Mart in order to improve sales of thingys. (just kidding)
Ehhhh, it's murky waters. And yes, I agree with your defintion to some extent. I'm not entirely against "Christmas" as a holiday season, and while our intentions at recognizing and drawing connections with the birth of Christ are good, I think we've allowed that to cloud our judgment about its Biblical validity. I think the body of Christ should be doing more to adhere to some of the feasts and spiritually significant forms of celebration. There's a lot of paganism in the church right now. I'll probably expound upon that as the time draws near.

Fundamentalist: A religious point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, and by a rigid adherence to those principles, often by intolerance of other views.
This definition sounds good to me, but it's the manifestation of fundamentalism that is often a turn off to me. People have allowed "rigid adherence" to become legalism. In studying the life of Christ, I think he is the true form of Fundamentalism we should be after. He was more concerned with the spirit of the law, and didn't pitch a tent and camp out at the law itself. I think the big miss with fundamentalism is "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind". Instead of guiding people to a love relationship with Jesus, out of which flows obedience to those things God asks of us, it guides people to rigid adherence to laws out of fear of being judged by God. Fundamentalism doesn't stress relationship, and to me that's the most important thing in our profession as "Christians". So if I use that term on this site, guarantee, it's probably not a "good" thing.

Memer wrote: What we have to wonder is if this is on the rise in some alarming way?
Of course it is. Even studies have shown that. Flip back 50+ years ago and what we currently air on television would have been shocking to that era. I mean, the Beavers slept in different beds for goodness sakes. Every season the reality shows get more trashy, skanky, and scandalous. The degeration of traditional family values on tv is blatant if you ask me.

What percentage of immoral programming (or percentage increase) is the number to watch out for? What is the standard -- does "Punk'd" count (why or why not?)
I don't think there's hard figures to place on this. It comes down to guarding what we're watching, and refusing to stand for foolishness. If the family is portrayed as sadisticly dysfunctional 9/10 of the time, and Americans are spending X number of hours in front of a television, there will be a direct cause and effect to the state of the family. Whatever we allow into our bodies, MUST find a way to come out. Taking in garbage, filth, and mixed-messages effect everyone whether they admit it or not. These television networks need to be held more accountable. And yes, we have an "off" switch, so ultimately, we're responsible for what we watch. But when you start thinking about the effect on young minds, we as society need to raise the bar of what will and will not tolerate.

Punk'd is rather harmless compared to a show like "Will & Grace". There's nothing "immoral" about practical jokes, unless of course, the jokes themselves cross the line. If anything, I think the language is vice of Punk'd, but content wise, it's amoral.

Is it only sex-related imagery or storylines that count? Or does stuff around the other deadly sins count, too?
Both. These days, sex is baked into everything. Cartoons, talkshows, shampoo commercials, it appeals to one of the weakest parts of humanity, the flesh. Storylines are a bit more slick because they use the backdoor approach to disseminating false messages. For example, these days, most shows have a gay or lesbian character. Of course, this is wrapped in the "diversity on tv" theory, but let's just be rea,. there is strategy behind a show like Will & Grace.

Back in the 90's, the nation wasn't ready for "Ellen" to "come out" and her show was quickly cancelled. On abc mind you, of all stations, home of the Amsterdam-like standards of the Disney crowd. Now, it seems, things have changed. What took place between now and then that has made people more accepting? The answer's clear, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Most shows find a way to bake in their liberal stance on various hot topics (abortion, teen pregnancy, the morning after pill, gay rights, traditional marriage). The storyline is usually where indoctrination happens.

And I did answer your last question

Ambra said:
"If the family is portrayed as sadisticly dysfunctional 9/10 of the time..."

Yowsa. Well I do have to admit the truth that if you go from ZERO sex innuendo to even ONE show with sexy innuendo, the percentage increase is mathematically infinity. About as high an increase as you can get. But, wowsers, is it really that bad? Mebbe a better way to look at it is in terms of percentage of the total amount of programming (once the dam was busted).

Again, you can always find a "Will & Grace" (whose only strategy, I contend, is to make money) or an "Ellen" (who's now wisely avoiding the 'L' issue on her show; gal's gotta make a livin) that's "dirty" and perverted or wotever. But then again, I can find lots that aren't. If you take a look at the top rated shows of today, I don't know that you can make an overwhelming case that 9/10 (or even 1/10) of them are much worse than Punk'd (which, in my heart of hearts, i hafta recognize there's nothing remotely Jesus-like in inflicting public embarrassment).

Some things may've been tamer 50 years ago, but a lotta things sucked, too (f'rinstance neither one of us could vote and you'd've been frowned upon for deigning to get a job or not being married by now). With freedom comes, well, more freedom. Mores, values evolve and overall become more enlightened (memer sez optimistically). But as long as the crappy stuff (including all the deadly sins, not just the lust-based ones) remains "low," we'll be aiight.

There were murders on television shows decades before there was "Will ad Grace". There were also booze commercials and "funny" alcoholics. And murders in films too (we even had movies that glorifed the genocide of the Native American). Televised boxing is a little violent too (but murder and theft are sins).

Enrique, what's up with the titles on your comments? Are you cutting and pasting an essay you wrote? Are you engaging in dialogue? Or are you trying to be the next Bonehoffer? When it comes down to it, what you're arguing the "once saved always saved" doctrine, which scripturally, I can't get behind. You and "advocate" can keep up the discussion a little while longer, otherwise, I say take it offline because it's going a direction the post was not intended to provoke.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I'm sorry Ambra if you don't like titles. They were used to show continuation of a post. Speaking of posts, yours began condemning "namby-pamby" Christianity. One of the marks of namby-pamby Christianity is that its holders often fail to back up their assertions with coherent, consistent explanations from scripture. Now you say that you "can't get behind" the once saved, always saved doctrine as detailed in the dialogue between Advocate and myself scripturaly. Fine. What then is your alternative? Do you therefore have any scriptures and the explanation thereof to support your conclusion to the contrary?

In respect for it being Ambra's blog I respected her wishes to not continue on is this matter> Yet and still Enrique you seem to be asking for it so to speak.
You talk of coherent consistent explainations. You never addressed the scriptural reality that I listed (minus giving the specific address of the passage which I would do if need be)
Can non-believers cast out demons and heal the sick in the name of Jesus?
Jesus condemed these ones to "depart from him and called them workers of iniquity" a simple Bible study will reveal that the term "worker of iniquity" is not synonymous with followers of Christ!
If somehow this can scripturally be shown, then I am afraid I am in the wrong faith! You never as well addressed the fact that Paul spoke of being "disqualified" to make your subjective statements of well he struggled with many things and then listing off what you observe his struggles to be does not answer the question!
This Calvanistic foolishness has brought much deception and disdain to the BOC and Peter wrote his epistles to sternly warn the Church of this very doctrine that was present even centuries ago! And he told us to "Work out our souls salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING" for a one time already complete work, I need not have to "Work it out" and why should I have fear(reverence respect) and be Trembling if I am already "in there like swimwear" so to speak?

You can email me at androcalypse99@hotmail.com if need be! To reply

Enrique: This will need to be taken off-line. Few people will go through and read all these epic-length comments and based on the catch words in the current discussion, it will cause more confusion than understanding so due to that fact, your comments have been removed. (Brevity gets you far 'round these parts)

I am more than happy to back up everything I've said with scripture, but this is not about to be the "Enrique Show" so I need you to email me for further discussion. Your steps from here will determine if you really want to dialogue.

Hello to everyone on the panel I would like to respond to some of the comments. First off, I do not represent any particular religious branch. I was just addressing these particulars in the article such as gay marriage and being gay in general. However, I would like to say the reason we have a seperation between church and state is that sometimes people who are well meaning will interpet the teaches of religion to fit their own particular needs and can possible distort the religion. The example that comes to mind is Waco, TX in saying this I am not saying that religion should not be a big part of a person life and affect the choices that person makes in their life but the key issue here is in that person's life not for everyone.