How does it hang together?

[Thomas]

Maybe so - but I would still argue that Christianity was never decentralised - and I would find it hard to posit an argument otherwise without some very clever spin on Scripture.

Thomas

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Maybe so - but I would still argue that Christianity was never decentralised - and I would find it hard to posit an argument otherwise without some very clever spin on Scripture.

Thomas

I wouldn't even try to spin Scripture. We have lots of literature from the Gnostics (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Library; read Hans Jonas, Bart D. Ehrman, and Elaine Pagels as a start). And there is enough Gnostic evidence in the scripture to corroborate it, to prove that the Gnostics and their theology was a serious threat to what eventually came to be known as orthodox Christianity. The Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians--all of these and lots of others--considered themselves to be Christians. It so happens that the winners get to tell the story, which in this case are the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Some people are asking what history would look like if Constantine had not chosen the forerunner of these--what if one of the other groups had won out, or what if all of these groups co-existed? Some ideas can be gained from observing literature, art, legal records, and other artifacts from the period. The New Testament is one of these.

 

[Saltmeister]

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 agree there's a central concept, but there are many different approaches to that central concept that would depend on the individual. The individual would have to figure out what works for him/her. While conformity may help people to approach that central concept, conformity may also be detrimental to that purpose. Conforming to an approach that's incompatible with one's character, personality or way of thinking might actually compromise the central concept. So . . . conformity can be dangerous too. When people are expected to approach a religion with the same rules, same doctrines, same methods, same tenets, what you get is a homogeneous group of believers!!! But these rules, doctrines, methods, etc. are more like signposts that give direction. If we have our eyes focused on these signposts we may lose sight of our goal -- the central concept. Signposts can't always be trusted.

Conformity to ideology, a set of rules, tenets and institutions could compromise our concept of Christ. If Christ is the indwelling Messiah, wouldn't it be detrimental to our concept of a personal Messiah if we felt the need to conform to these tenets? I acknowledge that tenets can help. They remind us of how people have approached Christ in the past. But I would see tenets as more like a "launching platform," "frame of reference" or "pivot point" to maneuver ourselves toward our personal Messiah. As these tenets weren't essential, we can discard them.

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...

When I said "decentralised" I meant people didn't attach themselves to a central leadership or governing body or conform to a fixed body of principles (ideology). Peter certainly had the Spirit in him that gave him the power to heal people, so what he had was special compared to what Simon possessed. What I was talking about was what gave Christians focus and direction, not "who's got the power." Peter's influence didn't rest on ideology or liturgy. It was his personal intimacy with the Spirit.

There's also that verse in 1 Corinthians 3:5-6.

Who is Apollos, and what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe -- as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

Paul didn't monopolise his role in the early church. He played his part. He wasn't part of some hierarchy. Most of the time he wasn't even around. He travelled a lot. He delivered his message, then he'd go somewhere else. He didn't stay to ensure his ideas were being enforced. Lack of a governing body and lack of ideology is what makes a religion "decentralised." Christianity wasn't founded on rules or tenets. People were encouraged to find out what worked for them. Sure there was a wrong way to do it. There are ways it doesn't work. Recall my analogy of a scientist/engineer that explains how things work. Scientists/engineers make mistakes and so do we.

I'm convinced from what I've read in the NT that Christianity didn't have an ideology or set of governing principles. If so, where's the list of governing principles? Where's the Creed? Paul, Peter, James and John wrote letters not creeds!!! As a result, I think Christianity was more personal and intimate. People sought to find out what worked for them.

Or am I wrong? Can anyone show me a Creed from the early church?

The epistles seem rather plain in language. They don't read like some legal document or science textbook. It appears they were writing in the everyday-language of the time. It doesn't seem to be heavy in jargon. I think what kept Christianity together was the Spirit, the indwelling Messiah, the story of Jesus, and what the apostles said about the Christian spiritual life and cosmos. All this allowed people to understand how things worked. They didn't all use the same approach, but it worked.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

You won't hear Wiccans/Buddhist/Falun Gong saying to each other "you're doing it wrong."

Not true, at least for Wicca.

There is a movement within Wicca that basically says that unless you are a Gardenarian or Alexandrian Wiccan, and unless you hold to the tenets that Garnder set forth, you're not Wiccan.

And as Gardner basically created the religion, I have no problem with that. It creates centralization.

If someone cannot hold to the tenets set forth by Gardener, they might be a witch, but they are not Wiccan.

As Wicca (as created by Gardener) is very young and we have his writings (or dictation), there isn't much room for argument (imo). This is different than Christianity, however, as it (Christianity) is so old and because Christianity's sacred scripture is a collection of books that spans centuries, rather than one or two single books.

Just my $.02

 

[Quahom1]

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:


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?

Can't "worship" someone as an "ancestor" if they are still alive. And I don't worship Christ Jesus. I try to be like Him. No I do not worship Jesus as an ancestor.

 

[Saltmeister]

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

Can't "worship" someone as an "ancestor" if they are still alive. And I don't worship Christ Jesus. I try to be like Him. No I do not worship Jesus as an ancestor.

I don't remember saying anything about "ancestor worship" of Jesus. I was talking about devotion to spiritual leaders as "ancestors." Devotion and worship aren't the same thing. Devotion might be seen as worship, but that wasn't my point. I referred to the ancient practice of honouring ancestors, but when I related this to Christianity, I talked about inheriting personal truths -- in the sense that we inherit the likeness of our ancestors. In other words, we become spiritual descendents.

The notion of spiritual descendents isn't new either. In Romans 4:11 and Galatians 3:29 those whom God accepts through faith are referred to as Abraham's spiritual descendents. My idea was that because God accepts Jesus, a man condemned as a heretic, he will also accept us. That makes Christ our ancestor. The idea of Jesus being the Second Adam, that the first Adam caused death and the new Adam brings us back to life (spiritually) and cures us of sin and death, is also an "ancestor concept."

The New Testament has quite a few "ancestor concepts" -- that we inherit certain benefits or traits through the concept of someone else, whether it's Abraham, Sarah (Galatians 4:21-31) or Jesus. The idea is that we can inherit certain benefits by following the lead of others. Sarah is a spiritual ancestor in the sense that she was a free woman. Hagar was a slave woman. Because Christ frees us from the Law and sin, we become Sarah's spiritual descendents. We can become descendents by trying to be like them or adopting the same attitude as them.

No, I don't worship Abraham, Sarah or Jesus even if I call them my spiritual ancestors! I just inherit their benefits.

Anti-Bible? I think not. You thought I was hinting at "ancestor worship" when I really meant "inheritance."

 

[Quahom1]

Ruby asked the question. Sorry to get you in the middle of this.

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Not true, at least for Wicca.

There is a movement within Wicca that basically says that unless you are a Gardenarian or Alexandrian Wiccan, and unless you hold to the tenets that Garnder set forth, you're not Wiccan.

And as Gardner basically created the religion, I have no problem with that. It creates centralization.

If someone cannot hold to the tenets set forth by Gardener, they might be a witch, but they are not Wiccan.

As Wicca (as created by Gardener) is very young and we have his writings (or dictation), there isn't much room for argument (imo).

For an alternative view, see bgruagach (a member here) and his website http://www.witchgrotto.com.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

And I don't worship Christ Jesus. I try to be like Him.

I am puzzled by this statement. I though all Christians worshipped God, which automatically includes Jesus. I'm not sure what question to ask so I get the answer I want. I would like to understand how a person can be a Christian and say he does not worship God and Jesus. I thought Christians worship Jesus and try to emulate (be like) him. Can you explain?

No I do not worship Jesus as an ancestor.

Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I don't remember saying anything about "ancestor worship" of Jesus.

In Post 29 you say

I would think of Jesus as much like an "ancestor."

That is at the beginning of the seventh paragraph and in the following paragraphs you expand on the idea.

I was talking about devotion to spiritual leaders as "ancestors." Devotion and worship aren't the same thing.

From your post and Quahom's I get the idea that I don't have a very good handle on what people mean by worship. Can you explain the difference between worship and devotion and honour when it regards God or Jesus or some other invisible Person/Being?

Also, could you explain how things would look if Christianity worshipped a Person rather than his teachings.

Anti-Bible? I think not. You thought I was hinting at "ancestor worship" when I really meant "inheritance."

I see. I would still appreciate a definition as described above, if you have time for that.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

For an alternative view, see bgruagach (a member here) and his website http://www.witchgrotto.com.

As I'm not Wiccan, I have absolutely no issues with bgruabach's views.

My perspective comes not from "If Gardner taught it, it must be absolutely true," but that if it looks like a duck, but walks, eats and sexually reproduces like a horse, it's probably not a duck.

If a coven splinters and creates a new coven, and that coven proceeds to attend a Christian church, perhaps partake of the Eucharist and go door to door proclaiming Christ, are they still Wiccan?

At some point there has to be a line (however fine) that says "This is what makes a Wiccan, a Wiccan." At least if a group is going to call itself a religion. Did Gardner do that? I don't know. A philosophy doesn't need the boundaries that a religion does. So in that case, then yes, the Wiccans could go door to door proclaiming Christ and still be called Wiccan. If, however, Wicca is a religion, there will be boundaries.

I am not saying it's easy (or even possible really) to make these distinctions, people being what they are. But at some point definitions need to mean something.

Thanks for starting a great thread!

 

[Quahom1]

I am puzzled by this statement. I though all Christians worshipped God, which automatically includes Jesus. I'm not sure what question to ask so I get the answer I want. I would like to understand how a person can be a Christian and say he does not worship God and Jesus. I thought Christians worship Jesus and try to emulate (be like) him. Can you explain?



Thanks for clearing this up.

To worship implies placing one on a pedestal. Jesus stooped to man, when man could not rise. What else is there to know? Are you by your statement above implying that you are not Christian? You appear to be in doubt.

You know, it is one thing to debate, and another to argue. You seem to prefer the latter. I personally do not.

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

As I'm not Wiccan, I have absolutely no issues with bgruabach's views.

My perspective comes not from "If Gardner taught it, it must be absolutely true," but that if it looks like a duck, but walks, eats and sexually reproduces like a horse, it's probably not a duck.

If a coven splinters and creates a new coven, and that coven proceeds to attend a Christian church, perhaps partake of the Eucharist and go door to door proclaiming Christ, are they still Wiccan?

At some point there has to be a line (however fine) that says "This is what makes a Wiccan, a Wiccan." At least if a group is going to call itself a religion. Did Gardner do that? I don't know. A philosophy doesn't need the boundaries that a religion does. So in that case, then yes, the Wiccans could go door to door proclaiming Christ and still be called Wiccan. If, however, Wicca is a religion, there will be boundaries.

I am not saying it's easy (or even possible really) to make these distinctions, people being what they are. But at some point definitions need to mean something.

Thanks for starting a great thread!

You're very welcome! Thank you for clarifying your perspective on Wicca. I read that articel the other night and I understand Gardner did not define the boundaries of Wicca, but that some Wiccans are saying if you don't believe as I do then you're not a Wicca. According to Ben, that goes against Gardner's teaching of autonomy--each can have his or her own beliefs.

But there has to be something to define it. And I wonder if perhaps it is defined by the term itself. A person who wants to be identified as a Christian has some idea of what it means to be Christian. A person who wants to be identified as a Wicca has some idea of what it means to be Wicca.

I am not saying these ideas are correct. However, I am thinking there is a broad enough difference between the popular stereotypical meaning of Christian and of Wicca so that probably no one would get into the wrong group by accident. In Western countries, Christian is probably associated in some general way with being respectable, mainstream, a decent way to be. Whereas Wicca is probably in those same countries associated with ideas of counter-culture, rebel, new and different.

I've read enough about Wicca and Luciferianism to get the idea that for people who want to find a certain philosophy, there is some variety to choose from among these counter-culture religions. As they research the variety of philosophies they will find what fits them best. A person who cares mainly to be part of a counter-culture will probably just choose the closest group regardless of its name and philosophy. That is how I size it up at this point.

Re the title of this thread, I was not thinking so much about the philosophies and boundaries of these other religions. I was thinking exclusively about the internal status of Christianity and its relation to the Bible when I started. But this has brought interesting diversity into the picture.

 

[Quahom1]

You're very welcome! Thank you for clarifying your perspective on Wicca. I read that articel the other night and I understand Gardner did not define the boundaries of Wicca, but that some Wiccans are saying if you don't believe as I do then you're not a Wicca. According to Ben, that goes against Gardner's teaching of autonomy--each can have his or her own beliefs.

But there has to be something to define it. And I wonder if perhaps it is defined by the term itself. A person who wants to be identified as a Christian has some idea of what it means to be Christian. A person who wants to be identified as a Wicca has some idea of what it means to be Wicca.

I am not saying these ideas are correct. However, I am thinking there is a broad enough difference between the popular stereotypical meaning of Christian and of Wicca so that probably no one would get into the wrong group by accident. In Western countries, Christian is probably associated in some general way with being respectable, mainstream, a decent way to be. Whereas Wicca is probably in those same countries associated with ideas of counter-culture, rebel, new and different.

I've read enough about Wicca and Luciferianism to get the idea that for people who want to find a certain philosophy, there is some variety to choose from among these counter-culture religions. As they research the variety of philosophies they will find what fits them best. A person who cares mainly to be part of a counter-culture will probably just choose the closest group regardless of its name and philosophy. That is how I size it up at this point.

Re the title of this thread, I was not thinking so much about the philosophies and boundaries of these other religions. I was thinking exclusively about the internal status of Christianity and its relation to the Bible when I started. But this has brought interesting diversity into the picture.

horse's ass. (that is the sailor in me). And if you wish to discuss Wicca, Lucifer what ever, there is a place for that that isn't here. (that is the moderator in me...).

The original post here (the thought) was, "Which passage should Christians listen to? How do Christians know they are listening to the right passage? " How it got to other faiths other than Christianity I don't know. I think we should go back to the beginning...

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

You know, it is one thing to debate, and another to argue. You seem to prefer the latter. I personally do not.

v/r

Q

Sorry if I come across that way. I am here to learn via discussion. It seems I have the wrong idea on the meaning of worship. I get that impression from both your and Saltmeister's posts. That is two people telling me I'm wrong. I take that very seriously. I want to learn what my misperception is and how to correct it. I was not aware that one's religious status determined on which sections one is allowed to post.

It is true that I don't know the difference between debate and argue. Debate is often considered a friendly endeaver while argue is sometimes considered to be adversarial. But it does not have to be. In academia, at least in the arts and humanities, we talk about a person's argument when we mean what a person thinks on a certain issue and why he/she thinks that way. While it can be adversarial, the dialogue is far more constructive when it is friendly, open, and to the point. That is the approach I intend to take on these forums.

I am also aware that the perspective from which one asks a question has a major impact on whether or not one gets the answer sought for. That is why I say I don't know what question to ask to get the answer I want.

You say:

To worship implies placing one on a pedestal. Jesus stooped to man, when man could not rise. What else is there to know?

One thing I would like to know is why you don't put Jesus Christ on a pedestal and worship him? My Christian parents and religious instructors indicated that this was the proper way to do things. In the Christian communities with which I am familiar, it seems the following terms all mean more or less the same: worship, devotion, praise, honour, glorify, revere.

One community refers to its Sunday morning church as the worship service. There was quite a variety of ways in which one could worship. There could be silent meditation, or comtemplation, or devotion. There could be a worship band with dance, clapping, and stamping. There was usually a sermon and sometimes a play depicting a certain biblical passage or lesson. There was prayer, both silent and audible, mostly communal. There were community events for the benefit of the poor. All of these things were considered to be to the honour and glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ. And there was always an emphasis on emulating Jesus, not only in church but in our everyday life. So this community believed in worshiping and emulating Jesus Christ. You ask what more is there to know. These are some of the additional things to know.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

horse's ass. (that is the sailor in me). And if you wish to discuss Wicca, Lucifer what ever, there is a place for that that isn't here. (that is the moderator in me...).

The original post here (the thought) was, "Which passage should Christians listen to? How do Christians know they are listening to the right passage? " How it got to other faiths other than Christianity I don't know. I think we should go back to the beginning...

v/r

Q

I am so very sorry dear moderator Q, I did not realize I was in the Christianity forum. I used the "new posts" feature to find this thread and then didn't check.

Ruby got the central thought to all my rambling about Wicca, which was "A person who wants to be identified as a Christian has some idea of what it means to be Christian. A person who wants to be identified as a Wicca has some idea of what it means to be Wicca."

I was saying, in a round about way, that Christianity, like other religions, has to have boundaries. Otherwise it becomes a free for all.

Please feel free to remove my post.

 

[Quahom1]

Sorry if I come across that way. I am here to learn via discussion. It seems I have the wrong idea on the meaning of worship. I get that impression from both your and Saltmeister's posts. That is two people telling me I'm wrong. I take that very seriously. I want to learn what my misperception is and how to correct it. I was not aware that one's religious status determined on which sections one is allowed to post.

It is true that I don't know the difference between debate and argue. Debate is often considered a friendly endeaver while argue is sometimes considered to be adversarial. But it does not have to be. In academia, at least in the arts and humanities, we talk about a person's argument when we mean what a person thinks on a certain issue and why he/she thinks that way. While it can be adversarial, the dialogue is far more constructive when it is friendly, open, and to the point. That is the approach I intend to take on these forums.

I am also aware that the perspective from which one asks a question has a major impact on whether or not one gets the answer sought for. That is why I say I don't know what question to ask to get the answer I want.

You say:



One thing I would like to know is why you don't put Jesus Christ on a pedestal and worship him? My Christian parents and religious instructors indicated that this was the proper way to do things. In the Christian communities with which I am familiar, it seems the following terms all mean more or less the same: worship, devotion, praise, honour, glorify, revere.

One community refers to its Sunday morning church as the worship service. There was quite a variety of ways in which one could worship. There could be silent meditation, or comtemplation, or devotion. There could be a worship band with dance, clapping, and stamping. There was usually a sermon and sometimes a play depicting a certain biblical passage or lesson. There was prayer, both silent and audible, mostly communal. There were community events for the benefit of the poor. All of these things were considered to be to the honour and glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ. And there was always an emphasis on emulating Jesus, not only in church but in our everyday life. So this community believed in worshiping and emulating Jesus Christ. You ask what more is there to know. These are some of the additional things to know.

Very well then. Here is an education lesson. If you read the Sticky at the top to the Christian forum you will note that Brian makes it quite clear that this is a "garden wall", wherein only Christianity is discussed at length.

Second, Christians do not worship anyone, nor anything. Christians attempt to be like the living Christ that is, Jesus...that is a work in progress. These are the basic fundementals of Christianity. Christians do not worship the Father (since the Father can't hear us but through the Son). The Son does not want us to worship Him, since it hinders our ability to try to be like Him. Christians do not worship the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit works in our lives with or without our knowledge.

Church is not worship. It is a gathering, in acknowledgement of Christ's sacrifice. It is a rememberance...and a resolve to continue.

You got to strip all the crap that has been laid on the "church"

There is a difference between the "CHURCH", and the "church" of people.

Like a favorite man who happened to be a priest said to me...'The best thing we can hope for, is to be Human'...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

I am so very sorry dear moderator Q, I did not realize I was in the Christianity forum. I used the "new posts" feature to find this thread and then didn't check.

Ruby got the central thought to all my rambling about Wicca, which was "A person who wants to be identified as a Christian has some idea of what it means to be Christian. A person who wants to be identified as a Wicca has some idea of what it means to be Wicca."

I was saying, in a round about way, that Christianity, like other religions, has to have boundaries. Otherwise it becomes a free for all.

Please feel free to remove my post.

You are not the problem (but then again you are part of...). Such is Human life and interaction. Brian encourages such, to a point.

Your post stays.

So does yours, Ruby.

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Very well then. Here is an education lesson. If you read the Sticky at the top to the Christian forum you will note that Brian makes it quite clear that this is a "garden wall", wherein only Christianity is discussed at length.

Christianity is the only topic I have discussed at length on this forum. I apologize for the one post in which I forgot the rules.

Second, Christians do not worship anyone, nor anything. Christians attempt to be like the living Christ that is, Jesus...that is a work in progress. These are the basic fundementals of Christianity. Christians do not worship the Father (since the Father can't hear us but through the Son). The Son does not want us to worship Him, since it hinders our ability to try to be like Him. Christians do not worship the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit works in our lives with or without our knowledge.

Church is not worship. It is a gathering, in acknowledgement of Christ's sacrifice. It is a rememberance...and a resolve to continue.

I guess you will have to take that up with the Christians who have a long tradition of having worship services in their churches on Sunday mornings. I can't speak for them. Here's one website http://www.waterloonorthmc.org/.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Christians do not worship the Father (since the Father can't hear us but through the Son).

Are you saying that Christians don't worship the Father thru the Son? I've never heard this before. Seriously. I'm not being flip. It is a totally new idea to me.

"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him." - John 4:23