I meant that our simpatico was short lived. I find the phrase "true Church" anathema to potential religious benefit to either individuals or society. This kind of thinking had its day but the future of religion must be more honest and self aware.
Some religions may be more fraudulent than others but all religion, by its very nature, is man made and imperfect. The magic stone turns to dust when the people look upon it.
That kind of thinking is always employed. You just employed it in judging me and finding me deficient. You employ it in your own dogma (i.e., "the future of religion
must be more honest and self-aware"). Accordingly to whom? Why? What ever do you mean by "more self aware" and "must"? According to you? Because you're in the higher position to make such judgments and determinations for others? We all do that sort of thing - as you have too. I'm not trying to be pompous or anything of the sort - I was just trying to delineate who I was actually talking about. Yes, I see myself as belonging to the "true Church" (Church, not synagogue, not Temple, not Mosque, not Center for Higher Consciousness, etc.) - but I'm not being overly sectarian there because I think that designation would apply to all manner of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I am talking not about all religions in general but in those that call themselves "Christian." And I am saying that those who call themselves that and are actually adherents of the cardinal or orthodox Christian beliefs (as have been expressed throughout the history of the Church) - i.e. "the true Church" - who reside in the USA, will do well to see themselves as a minority now. That's a good thing in my opinion. I am thus distinguishing it from others like:
Jehovah Witnesses - they have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.
Or, Mormons. And they also have always been a minority view. And they aren't orthodox Christians. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological judgment.
Or, anti-supernatural, "liberal," mainliners, who aren't distinguishable from culture on the points of contention and so they aren't a minority and thus my point doesn't apply to them. And that's not a value judgment, that's an historical, theological, and cultural judgment.
Or, "Christian Nationalists," a term I'm applying to those who want to wrap the flag around them, and many of them have so bastardized and syncretized their faith with patriotism that there is very little remaining (if it was there in the first place) of a historic-creed. And when civic-duty and patriotism becomes a sort of works-righteousness then I have a hard time considering that Christianity. And sadly, from my perspective, that sort of view gets wedded to prosperity hucksters (e.g., Osteen, T.D. Jakes) and/or Zionism (e.g., Hagee).
I use the adjective, "true" to mean "true to the historic standard" as opposed to the examples above. My statement isn't knocking any other religion. It is calling attention to my own tribe. And Christianity - if it isn't a wax nose - has historically had certain markers, certain central, core beliefs and practices that distinguish it from other faiths. That's all I'm saying.
