How does it hang together?

[BlaznFattyz]

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

first and foremost, listen to the teachings of jesus christ. he fulfilled the scriptures and prophecies and is the way, the truth, and the life. what he says is the final say in the gospel.

if you invited me to a party, and i responded in a letter saying i couldnt attend and mailed it to you, then before the letter reached you, i called you on the phone and said i would be coming after all. what do you go by? this is basically what christ did--the laws he authored and gave to his chosen people for a specific purpose , but then he came in person and said this is what it all really means, here i am, so now listen to me.

as far as knowing stories of the bible, like moses, jonah, noah, daniel, john, etc... there is quite a lot to learn from these stories as many of them show the nature of god and what he is trying to convey to us. that takes alot of studying, praying for wisdom from god, faith, to some extent life experiences, and a humble and accepting heart to see the truth, and willingness to accept the error of your ways and reasoning to see the actual truth.

when the truth is given or extracted from the stories of the bible it may be tested as true, and succesfully applied without fail. when cultures or traditions or preconceived notions or arrogance get intertwined with the gospel, many times one cannot see the truth because of all that is personally invested cause some to be unable to seperate the two, thus confusing the true meaning of the word.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Because Peter was specifically told by God that pork was not the issue...(read about the dream of PETER, with the bed sheets full of animals lowered down to him from heaven). That is why I can eat pork chops with a clear conscience. Because AS a Christian, I see what Christ was trying to tell us...namely if we follow God with all our hearts and strength and mind, we wouldn't need so many damn laws to try to follow, as written in the OT. We would naturally observe them because of our fastidiousness to the Way Jesus has shewn us.

That answers my question. Thank you.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

Juantoo, I won't copy all of your post but I read it more than once. It's very helpful to have Christians confess that there is a limit to what can be known, and that there is an element of trust based on what can be known. If all Christians in my life had been so confident in their faith, that they could be so honest about this, my life might have been quite a bit easier. For too many decades have I lived under the threat of condemnation for asking these questions. Finally, I decided to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done to find happiness or peace. Human condemnation no longer mattered. But it helps heal the hurt to hear Christians confess in all honesty that they can't know for absolute fact that God exists.

I feel honored and humbled by your comments. I am truly sorry to hear of the condemnation you have experienced. I see similar often, and I feel it is not a very Christian attitude. I tried living up to others expectations for a long time in my life, and always felt I came up short. One day it hit me, to live my life for me. The only entity I need concern myself with pleasing is my Heavenly Father. I live my life the best I know how. If that is acceptable to others, great! If not, oh well, I'm not going to worry about it. I do not have to please other people to get to heaven.

I guess on one hand what you say is true, we cannot know with absolute certainty that G-d exists, any more than we can know what thoughts are made of. Yet, we do have some circumstantial evidences. There are archeological evidences of places and names and even stories found in the Bible. These are the "proven" evidences. Then there is experiential evidence, usually personal in nature, our "relative truths." Those prescient dreams that come true, those "good" things that happen in our lives seemingly effortlessly or by chance. Those prayers that are answered "in mysterious ways." These things point to what we intuit, what we sense, what we seek innately. I call this we seek "G-d," the Creator of reality, the "IS." Perhaps others view this somewhat differently, but it seems we all seek what we innately intuit, since prehistoric times. By faith, I accept G-d is real. Yes, I cannot prove this specifically. In that sense, I cannot "prove" G-d exists. But there is enough evidence in my life and in my faith-walk to believe He does exist.

Just like I cannot explain to you what my thoughts are composed of, I know I think, therefore thoughts do exist, at least for me. Because I cannot prove thoughts exist, perhaps they may not seem proven to someone else. I can accept that possibility, but I will proceed with what evidences point to and what has manifested in my life, and proceed the best I know how with my understanding. My way may not be the only way, my way may not be the best way, but it is the way I understand, and it is the way I will travel to the best of my ability unless and until spirit directs me otherwise. A great deal of this walk is by trust and faith. If there were no evidence in my life whatsoever, then my trust and faith would be blind.

I'm not a big proponent of blind faith. If G-d is real, then He won't mind a few questions. Just be ready when the answers come.

 

[earl]

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

Doesn't everybody?

If not, what or who do they think they are worshipping or obedying or reading about or believing in?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

Hmmm, hadn't thought about that one. Synchronicity? Considering my example was purely random, "off the top of my head?"

 

[inhumility]

Thus, the real question of this thread is: How do Christians know which scriptures to go by when there are conflicting passages?

I am not a Christian yet I feel I should reflect on the above, as my response, in my opinion, is not against Christianity, otherwise just ignore my reflection.

The passage which is most in conformity with the core teachings of Jesus, quoted in Jesus' own words should be adopted and preferred over the other one.

Thanks

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I am not a Christian yet I feel I should reflect on the above, as my response, in my opinion, is not against Christianity, otherwise just ignore my reflection.

The passage which is most in conformity with the core teachings of Jesus, quoted in Jesus' own words should be adopted and preferred over the other one.

Thanks

Theoretically, I think this is what Christians do. But Christians tend to disagree widely on what the core teachings of Jesus are. And for the finer details there is practically no agreement across the religion. This accounts in part for the huge numbers of splinters in Christianity. It can also be extremely confusing for one coming in from the outside or for one who was born into the religion and is serious about finding the Truth. This is basically what gave rise to my question in the first place.

So many Chrisitans profess to base their beliefs directly on the Bible but one group builds on one verse and another builds on another verse. And these verses conflict. Yet it is all supposed to be God's Word. If we can ever agree on what the core teachings of Jesus are we might see a major coming-together of Christian sects. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, though strange things and miracles do happen occassionally.

 

[Saltmeister]

Theoretically, I think this is what Christians do. But Christians tend to disagree widely on what the core teachings of Jesus are. And for the finer details there is practically no agreement across the religion. This accounts in part for the huge numbers of splinters in Christianity. It can also be extremely confusing for one coming in from the outside or for one who was born into the religion and is serious about finding the Truth. This is basically what gave rise to my question in the first place.

So many Chrisitans profess to base their beliefs directly on the Bible but one group builds on one verse and another builds on another verse. And these verses conflict. Yet it is all supposed to be God's Word. If we can ever agree on what the core teachings of Jesus are we might see a major coming-together of Christian sects. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, though strange things and miracles do happen occassionally.

I think my response to this issue would be every much like what I posted in "The Path" thread.

Not all Christian groups are exclusivist, some may well be merely "special interest groups" seeking a specific experience or "flavour" of Christianity. Nevertheless, many of them are clearly divisive.

I believe all these schisms, divisions and factions are really caused by one critical factor: emphasis on teachings rather than the personality of Jesus and that of his apostles. My view is that doctrine, liturgy, tenets, rules, protocols and institutions will inevitably divide Christianity, that it's the personality of Christ that truly unites. When people disagree on teachings they lose the common ground on which they stand. They may both share the concept of Christ, but the teachings are seen as more important than Christ. They forget that the teachings themselves come from Christ, not the other way round. If we focus on Christ and his personality as the primary concept, we can remain united even if we disagree. The disagreements are merely the result of personal differences.

It's because Jesus is a person; the teachings are not. The teachings don't have a life of their own. They are derived from Jesus' personality. Jesus' personality is something we can relate to, but we can't relate that well to teachings alone. That would be particularly true if the same teachings come up in other faiths. Jesus' teachings were Jesus expressing himself. They are unique to Jesus. The teachings of Paul, Peter, James and John were different to those of Jesus because they were Paul, Peter, James and John expressing themselves. Teachings are an expression of personal truth.

Truth is personal. Truth must be compatible with the person that possesses and believes in it. Everybody will have his own personal truths.

That doesn't mean Paul, Peter, James and John started their own religions. Jesus was the pilot flame that ignited the other flames. Paul, Peter, James and John's personal truths were really Jesus' personal truths expressed differently. They inherited Jesus' personal truths. Their epistles were an extension of what Jesus taught while he was on earth.

I would think of Jesus as much like an "ancestor." Many cultures have the practice where people worship and honour their ancestors. The Old Testament, actually, has a lot of references to respecting one's ancestors. Jesus would be an "ancestor" in the sense that we inherit his personal truths. Jesus' apostles are his immediate descendents and inherit personal truths directly from him. Their followers inherited personal truths from the apostles. In other words, Paul, Peter, James and John can be seen to be our ancestors too.

The medieval practice of devotion to the saints may well have been based on this idea. It was probably a way of honouring our ancestors in the Christian faith. It was maybe a "devotion to one's ancestors" in the faith. That's because an ancestor is a role model to be emulated. These people were perhaps reminding themselves of the closest emulator to their Christ/Messiah. Their deceased "ancestors" were seen to be people led by an indwelt Messiah, living inside them and lighting their way.

There is the very obvious possibility that this could be seen as idolatry. On the other hand, "devotion to the saints" could also be a way of recognising and acknowledging someone else's personal truths. I no longer believe that "Christian Truth" is found solely in the Bible; it can be found in people as well. The Bible is really a Journal that tells us how to look for the personal truths within us, by demonstrating how others found personal truth within themselves in the past. Personal truths can also be shared with other people. We can then be mentors to each other and co-ancestors and co-descendents of each other's teachings. We're all in this together.

The central concept of Christianity, I guess, is Christ, the Messiah. This is what I believe the Christian faith is really about. The teachings, the liturgy, the doctrine, the rules, regulations, guidelines, famous messages and sayings are all secondary to Jesus' personality. Without the latter we wouldn't have the former. It's not the teachings that define Jesus' character, but the character itself that produces the teachings. I don't think it would make sense to follow the teachings themselves without appreciating the personality that produced them as that wouldn't be very personal. It may even be seen as "blind faith." It doesn't result in a better understanding of Christianity. I reckon it would actually cripple the faith. It may mean, therefore, that the personality is more important than the teachings.

This might seem like a rather bizarre way of viewing Christianity, but it may, perhaps work. It's one possible approach among the many guinea pig experiments that Christianity has tried.

 

[Quahom1]

I think my response to this issue would be every much like what I posted in "The Path" thread.

Not all Christian groups are exclusivist, some may well be merely "special interest groups" seeking a specific experience or "flavour" of Christianity. Nevertheless, many of them are clearly divisive.

I believe all these schisms, divisions and factions are really caused by one critical factor: emphasis on teachings rather than the personality of Jesus and that of his apostles. My view is that doctrine, liturgy, tenets, rules, protocols and institutions will inevitably divide Christianity, that it's the personality of Christ that truly unites. When people disagree on teachings they lose the common ground on which they stand. They may both share the concept of Christ, but the teachings are seen as more important than Christ. They forget that the teachings themselves come from Christ, not the other way round. If we focus on Christ and his personality as the primary concept, we can remain united even if we disagree. The disagreements are merely the result of personal differences.

It's because Jesus is a person; the teachings are not. The teachings don't have a life of their own. They are derived from Jesus' personality. Jesus' personality is something we can relate to, but we can't relate that well to teachings alone. That would be particularly true if the same teachings come up in other faiths. Jesus' teachings were Jesus expressing himself. They are unique to Jesus. The teachings of Paul, Peter, James and John were different to those of Jesus because they were Paul, Peter, James and John expressing themselves. Teachings are an expression of personal truth.

Truth is personal. Truth must be compatible with the person that possesses and believes in it. Everybody will have his own personal truths.

That doesn't mean Paul, Peter, James and John started their own religions. Jesus was the pilot flame that ignited the other flames. Paul, Peter, James and John's personal truths were really Jesus' personal truths expressed differently. They inherited Jesus' personal truths. Their epistles were an extension of what Jesus taught while he was on earth.

I would think of Jesus as much like an "ancestor." Many cultures have the practice where people worship and honour their ancestors. The Old Testament, actually, has a lot of references to respecting one's ancestors. Jesus would be an "ancestor" in the sense that we inherit his personal truths. Jesus' apostles are his immediate descendents and inherit personal truths directly from him. Their followers inherited personal truths from the apostles. In other words, Paul, Peter, James and John can be seen to be our ancestors too.

The medieval practice of devotion to the saints may well have been based on this idea. It was probably a way of honouring our ancestors in the Christian faith. It was maybe a "devotion to one's ancestors" in the faith. That's because an ancestor is a role model to be emulated. These people were perhaps reminding themselves of the closest emulator to their Christ/Messiah. Their deceased "ancestors" were seen to be people led by an indwelt Messiah, living inside them and lighting their way.

There is the very obvious possibility that this could be seen as idolatry. On the other hand, "devotion to the saints" could also be a way of recognising and acknowledging someone else's personal truths. I no longer believe that "Christian Truth" is found solely in the Bible; it can be found in people as well. The Bible is really a Journal that tells us how to look for the personal truths within us, by demonstrating how others found personal truth within themselves in the past. Personal truths can also be shared with other people. We can then be mentors to each other and co-ancestors and co-descendents of each other's teachings. We're all in this together.

The central concept of Christianity, I guess, is Christ, the Messiah. This is what I believe the Christian faith is really about. The teachings, the liturgy, the doctrine, the rules, regulations, guidelines, famous messages and sayings are all secondary to Jesus' personality. Without the latter we wouldn't have the former. It's not the teachings that define Jesus' character, but the character itself that produces the teachings. I don't think it would make sense to follow the teachings themselves without appreciating the personality that produced them as that wouldn't be very personal. It may even be seen as "blind faith." It doesn't result in a better understanding of Christianity. I reckon it would actually cripple the faith. It may mean, therefore, that the personality is more important than the teachings.

This might seem like a rather bizarre way of viewing Christianity, but it may, perhaps work. It's one possible approach among the many guinea pig experiments that Christianity has tried.

Hence Jesus the Christ IS alive and well...? I mean, one can't follow the personality of a "dead man" now can one?

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Saltmeister, how do you propose to get this kind of cult off the ground? All you use to describe it is language, which is a teaching. The only way to know whether a person is in or out of the group is by measuring them against some kind of criteria, which would of necessity be composed in language.

You emphasize personal truth. If everyone's personal truth is different from everyone else's, how do you propose the group to hang together?

You also make an erroneous statement in that you say Jesus' teachings were unique to him. If you study the philosophy, folktales, and other general knowledge that floated around the ancient Middle East, you will see that Jesus' teachings were anything but unique.

Your mention of worship of ancestors is very anti-Bible. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I think your idea may be sound if the goal is to unite Christianity, but the logistics as you describe do not propose a workable solution so far as I can see. The next question I would ask is: Why is it important to unite Christianity? Do we want the entire human race under one ruler, the pope or bishop of the "flock"?

I mention the entire human race because Christians never stop with converting each other; when that is done the notice Jesus' "Great Commission" to convert the world.

Quahom, if you are familiar with the cultures that practice acestor worship, you will know that it's primarily and probably exclusively dead ancestors who are being worshipped or revered. Thus, your hypothesis that if Jesus were worshiped as an ancestor he would of necessity have to be alive does not hold water.

 

[Quahom1]

...
Quahom, if you are familiar with the cultures that practice acestor worship, you will know that it's primarily and probably exclusively dead ancestors who are being worshipped or revered. Thus, your hypothesis that if Jesus were worshiped as an ancestor he would of necessity have to be alive does not hold water.

Since I am not familiar with cultures that practice ancestor worship, then my hypothesis does hold water, for me. Like Christ said, let the dead bury their dead.

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Since I am not familiar with cultures that practice ancestor worship, then my hypothesis does hold water, for me.

If you want to be a unique Christian with no affiliation with any other Christians or theology then I guess you can hold whatever beliefs you want to. The "grandfathers" of the Ojibwa people Irving Hallowell studied 80 years ago would probably be called spirits or angels by Christians. These grandfathers were able to provide wisdom, guidance, and protection to their children, the people alive and struggling to remain alive, at the time. The Romans of the classical period burned incense to the Patriarch of their clan who was dead but in some way had the power to influence the well-being of the home and its inhabitants. According to Christian belief, Jesus was dead and buried but resurrected after a few days, and is now alive at the right hand of the Father. If he is the author and finisher of the Christian's faith perhaps he can be called the ancestor. You've got more courage than I if you want to introduce ancestor worship (meaning Jesus) to a conservative Christian congregation. I would be afraid of getting kicked out before they heard that name of Jesus drop from my lips.

 

[Quahom1]

If you want to be a unique Christian with no affiliation with any other Christians or theology then I guess you can hold whatever beliefs you want to. The "grandfathers" of the Ojibwa people Irving Hallowell studied 80 years ago would probably be called spirits or angels by Christians. These grandfathers were able to provide wisdom, guidance, and protection to their children, the people alive and struggling to remain alive, at the time. The Romans of the classical period burned incense to the Patriarch of their clan who was dead but in some way had the power to influence the well-being of the home and its inhabitants. According to Christian belief, Jesus was dead and buried but resurrected after a few days, and is now alive at the right hand of the Father. If he is the author and finisher of the Christian's faith perhaps he can be called the ancestor. You've got more courage than I if you want to introduce ancestor worship (meaning Jesus) to a conservative Christian congregation. I would be afraid of getting kicked out before they heard that name of Jesus drop from my lips.

Ancestor denotes "past". Jesus according to Christians, IS. To attempt to apply dead or "was" to Christ is a misnomer and a mistake. As you stated, He rose again and physically walked among people (I assume to reinforce the fact that He is alive and well). He ate, drank, touched and was touched.

There is nothing unique about my concept of Christianity. I take the "fact" that Jesus lives, at face value. Perhaps I am unique as a Catholic in that I do not pray to saints or Mary, nor do I ask for their intercession on my behalf (I believe they are much to busy with other things heavenly). If I have a petition, or concern or just want to talk, I bring it to Jesus. Plain and simple.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

From Quahom, Post 32:

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin
...
Quahom, if you are familiar with the cultures that practice acestor worship, you will know that it's primarily and probably exclusively dead ancestors who are being worshipped or revered. Thus, your hypothesis that if Jesus were worshiped as an ancestor he would of necessity have to be alive does not hold water.

Since I am not familiar with cultures that practice ancestor worship, then my hypothesis does hold water, for me. Like Christ said, let the dead bury their dead.
v/r

Q

We seem to be having a misunderstanding and I think I have found it. I thought you were saying that you worship Jesus as an ancestor but that he is alive. I pointed out that ancestor worship is not about worshipping live beings but dead ones, and therefore Jesus cannot be an ancestor i.e. your hypothesis does not hold. Now I see that you just grabbed a hold of the first and last parts of my statement, ignored the rest, and said I was wrong. Since the middle part of the statement qualified the rest, things got all twisted and confused. Let’s recap:

In response to Saltmeister’s Post #29 about worshipping Jesus as an ancestor you stated in Post 30 that:

Hence Jesus the Christ IS alive and well...? I mean, one can't follow the personality of a "dead man" now can one?

That response is confusing. First, you question whether Jesus is alive. Then you state that one can’t follow a dead man. Obviously, the second statement is false because many people do/did follow dead people i.e. ancestor worship. Thus, I conclude that you reject the veracity of humans worshipping dead people. I inform you that your hypothesis holds no water and you insist it does. You seem to hold to conservative traditional Christian beliefs (which Saltmeister obviously does not). So I figure out a way in which perhaps Jesus might be viewed as an ancestor from the traditional Christian perspective, and again you tell me I’m wrong.

So which is it, Q—do you or do you not worship Jesus as an ancestor?

 

[Saltmeister]

Saltmeister, how do you propose to get this kind of cult off the ground? All you use to describe it is language, which is a teaching. The only way to know whether a person is in or out of the group is by measuring them against some kind of criteria, which would of necessity be composed in language.

I think your idea may be sound if the goal is to unite Christianity, but the logistics as you describe do not propose a workable solution so far as I can see. The next question I would ask is: Why is it important to unite Christianity? Do we want the entire human race under one ruler, the pope or bishop of the "flock"?

You emphasize personal truth. If everyone's personal truth is different from everyone else's, how do you propose the group to hang together?

The idea came from what I observed in other religions. There is one thing Falun Gong, Wicca and New Age have in common: they're not "centralised." The followers, regardless of where you are, where you live, your race or nationality, are not dependent on the rest of the collective. Nobody is there to enforce the way you practice these religions. It's self-serve.

I liked the idea of how the Falun Gong movement started. Li Hongzhi, its leader, doesn't have centralised control of the Falun Gong movement. All he's got is a web site. Lack of centralisation is the reason why it's got so many followers in China. Centralisation isn't necessary. People just meet in certain isolated places to practice their religion, channel their Qi Gong energy. While Falun Gong isn't centralised it isn't fragmented. Pamphlets are distributed and meetings organised to get people interested but not attached to any "establishment." I'm not a follower of Falun Gong, but I like Li Hongzhi's idea.

Religions like Wicca, Buddhism and New Age are like that too. There is no "centralisation." No single leader. People don't align themselves to a fixed set of teachings. They adopt and absorb whatever works for them. But instead of judging each other, followers of Falun Gong, Buddhism, New Age and Wicca encourage each other. They see personal truth in each other. There's no centralised leadership, but they aren't fragmented either.

You won't hear Wiccans/Buddhist/Falun Gong saying to each other "you're doing it wrong." If a Wiccan, Buddhist, New Ager thinks you've got the wrong idea, he will simply share with you what he thinks Wicca/Buddhism/New Age means. They don't say you're wrong even if you are. They just tell you what they think of their religion. They'll just tell you their theory on how it works. It's like an engineer or scientist. Listen to him explain how something works, lay his knowledge out before you and if you know enough about science, you will see that he's right. He convinces you with his knowledge. A similar story with Wicca/Buddhist/Falun Gong.

Not saying I'm converted, but our approach to Christianity could be more like that. I think Christianity was probably like that when it started and spread through the Roman Empire. Christianity was personal to start with, but over time people forgot that it was Jesus' personality (though that's just my view) they lived for, not his teachings. They started judging each other on teachings: "You're doing it wrong." But as I said before, a Wiccan, Buddhist, New Ager will never tell you that you're wrong or that you've twisted their religion, they'll just tell you what it is, just like a scientist or engineer who explains how things work. Also, as religions they're "decentralised."

Instead of "do it the Jehovah's Witness way, do it the Catholic way, the Anabaptist way," it's "just do it." Even if you're doing it wrong, someday somebody will teach you how to do it right. You'd be corrected. You won't have to get burned for it.

In reference to the question, How does it hang together? . . .

There is an aspect about Christianity that makes it different to Wicca, Buddhism, New Age and Falun Gong. What makes Christianity different, I think, is that there's a concept that needs to be preserved. I might describe Christianity as a "preservationist" religion. Wicca, Buddhism, New Age and Falun Gong aren't "preservationist." This is probably why you'd be criticised or considered "non-Christian" if you're "universalist" or mix Christianity with other religions. There is something about Christianity that needs to be preserved. I haven't quite put my finger on it. I don't think I ever will. That's the reason why Christians may react negatively -- they know there's something they need to protect, but they're not sure what it is.

My idea of "ancestral devotion" and "de-emphasis" on teachings was that maybe Jesus was IT. There was something about Jesus that held it all together. That's how Christianity might "hang together" even if we don't think the same way. Jesus holds it altogether. Our views on how the notion of Jesus can "hang together" and be "preserved" may differ. But just like Wiccans, Buddhists and New Agers we wouldn't have to prove it to other people. We'd just explain what it means and how it works for us. People will listen to our explanations, see how it works and simply be convinced that we're not insane, mad or crazy -- that we know what we're talking about. We won't necessarily end up believing the same things but at least we could share what we have. That's perhaps how it would "hang together" -- that it just works for us. That's what happens with Wiccans, Buddhists and New Agers: it just works for them.

I acknowledge that Christianity is fragmented. That fragmentation is real.

I guess I'm a nerd. I'll say it like this: The fragmentation in Christianity is a result of attempts to centralise it. It's where Christians align themselves to some centralised leadership based on an existing movement, leader or set of teachings. If Christianity became "decentralised" maybe the "fragments" will disappear. Leadership wouldn't be centralised. No need to measure them against some criteria. If people think they need something, whatever it is, even if it's not my ideas, they'll move towards it. My ancestor/devotion to personality idea as just a concept of how it might happen. It would have to be some natural process, where people change their approach to Christianity by the mere exchange of ideas, mentoring and guiding each other.

I should probably say "organised religion," but "centralised leadership" better conveys the idea that Christianity is centralised around fragments. Once this centralised leadership is removed (decentralisation), we might be more free to enjoy a more unifying experience. We would still have different beliefs, but there'd be more cohesion between Christian communities.

It's our attitude to other Christians that needs to change. I was thinking that some kind of "decentralisation" would dissolve the fragments (like salt crystals) so that we could finally work together as one faith.

 

[wil]

It seems like I am reading exactly what Christianity was until the universal church threw out it's lariat reeled folks in and created the bible.... So what if all the gospels all the apocrypha continued on its own....No system of hierarchy in the various denominations that would have cropped up...books continuing to be written, thoughts contemplated and dissected...without anyone ever able to say that thought isn't canonical, or is heretical....

Whattaya think it would look like today?

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Saltmeister, I think I'm beginning to see your vision. I think you're right that Christianity also started as a decentralized religion. But after Constantine it seems there has been major emphasis on uniting Christianity under one rule. Constantine himself ordered the bishops to come up with a creed to which all Christians would have to adhere. Some Christians simply refused and got killed off. There is a lot of speculation today that he wanted to unite the empire through a common religion. I can see how this led to a "true" Christianity versus "heretics" like Gnostics.

Regarding Wicca. Last night I read quite a bit on bgruagach's website http://www.witchgrotto.com/. The article on

Wiccan Fundamentalism is enlightening. Apparently not even Wicca is free of people who think everyone has to believe like they do.

 

[Thomas]

There is one thing Falun Gong, Wicca and New Age have in common: they're not "centralised." ... It's self-serve.

But philosophically this leads to a situation where the term becomes meaningless, because it means anything anyone wants it to mean. Something must have a central tenet or tenets to which everyone adheres? If it dosn't, then it's nothing, surely?

I think you're right that Christianity also started as a decentralized religion.

No - it was never decentralised. The authority rested with the Apostles, and with their successors, that is inarguable. In Acts we have Simon Magus asking if he can buy the power the Apostles have...

But after Constantine it seems there has been major emphasis on uniting Christianity under one rule.

Constantine saw that if Christianity was to be a meaningful religion, there has to be a statement of what it is, and what it isn't. That's all he asked.

Constantine himself ordered the bishops to come up with a creed to which all Christians would have to adhere.

Not quite so. Constantine argued that if there was such a thing as Christianity, then surely everybody had to assent to the basic principles of such? What were the basic requirements for someone to call themselvs a Christian? He thought that a Christian from Asia Minor should be 'at home' and believe in the same things as a Christian from Gaul.

The evidence is that by the 2/3rd century what was being taught in Gaul, North Africa and Asia Minor, for example, was the one and the same. The first creed dates from about this time. Rome was special, not only because of Peter and Paul, but being the 'centre' of the Empire, everything passed through Rome.

Some Christians simply refused and got killed off.

Not quite sure on that one, either. There were disputes, there were riots, there were individual acts f violence, but there was no authoritative decision to kill off the opposition, as far as I know.

There is a lot of speculation today that he wanted to unite the empire through a common religion. I can see how this led to a "true" Christianity versus "heretics" like Gnostics.

Gnostics were 'old news' by the Constantine's time. There's a lot of speculation, bit a significant lack of historical understanding, both of the facts, and of the processes.

"True" Christianity was being preached by the Apostles, and defended by them and their successors. Irenaeus argued against the heretics (the gnostics especially) in the 2nd century. Constantine was 4th century.

The Ecumenical Councils Nicea on were not about 'a common religion' so much as the understanding of Christology, philosophical reflection upon the meaning of Trinity and Incarnation.

Thomas

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Thomas, I think what we are seeing here is a fairly liberal Protestant vs a fairly conservative Catholic telling of the story. I may have gotten a few details wrong but for the most part, the things I say agree with the two-semester course on church history I just completed.