Why do people try to change Christianity?

[Virtual_Cliff]

But you used absolute language, without allowing for exceptions to your claims. The old "I didn't say 'every single'" play is nothing but a dishonest cop-out.

I say steady on old chap!

In other words, you are ignorant, you are thrilled with your ignorance, and you choose to continue to wallow in ignorance instead of actually learning anything.

Whoa! It is a fair point that many translations have adopted an overly pompous style, maybe for good reasons, but the result is still pomposity. Add to that the fact that the most well-know translation is four hundred years old, and that, in Anglican services at least, every reading is bracketed by a little ritual, and you are approaching the "song and dance" routine alluded to here.

In other words, you make up post-hoc nonsense to rationalize your extremist claims.

Is it so extremist to hanker after simple forms of worship?

As soon as you quote where I stated that it must be so. You, on the other hand, have made it plain that it must LACK music to have any value.

A lot of the music is pretty dire though isn't it? Sometimes I have been really uplifted by sacred music, many times it seemed it was only there to fill a space.

Problem is, the more you dress up the worship, the further you remove it from real life and the less relevant it becomes. Still, there are the quakers and others, if you don't like ceremony.

 

[Dream]

That's why I prefer American Country Music. I get alot of information about God's greatness, without getting put to sleep, or slammed over the head with the message.

What we call country music was new when we were young, and I didn't realize how world changing it was. It is now a recognized dimension in song, like rock'n roll. Someone had to point out to me how country music is so romantic and has a worldwide appeal, wherever there are country folk. There are country folk everywhere of course. Certain famous old country singers are now legends like Beethoven or Gershwin. There can never be another Johnny Cash, for instance. I'm starting to get that.

 

[Saltmeister]

But you used absolute language, without allowing for exceptions to your claims. The old "I didn't say 'every single'" play is nothing but a dishonest cop-out.

I had a read of my own posts. No, I did not use absolute language. It was never absolute. It was always relative. I think by claiming that I used absolute language, it is you that is making "absolute claims." If I want to state something in absolute terms, I will make it explicitly clear that it is black and white. Most of what I say on these forums is relative. Please give examples of me using absolute language.

In other words, you are ignorant, you are thrilled with your ignorance, and you choose to continue to wallow in ignorance instead of actually learning anything.

It is pointless obsessing over whether the original Greek was "boring" and "uninspiring." It is not the expression but the content that is important. I don't care if it wasn't poetic. It didn't need to be poetic. The meaning is more important than how it sounds in the original Greek. If the NT can be translated into the world's many languages and sound fancy, spectacular and dramatic then how it sounded in the original Greek is of little consequence.

You did not change my opinion on the NT being written to be dramatic, fancy and sensational. It is not because I choose to be ignorant, but because your argument was not convincing.

Moreover, with the sarcasm you have been showing in your posts I wonder if you are truly being sincere or if you just want to patronise and intimidate me.

In other words, you make up post-hoc nonsense to rationalize your extremist claims.

I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. When I said "singing and dancing," I meant those three words to be taken together, not to literally mean singing and dancing separately, but the nature of the worship.

Why should it really be such a big deal whether or not people really dance -- and I mean physically? The physical movements are insignificant. Do you really think I literally meant that people were shaking their bodies? I was referring to the attitude people had.

As soon as you quote where I stated that it must be so. You, on the other hand, have made it plain that it must LACK music to have any value.

I never made it plain that it must lack music to have value. You're accusing me of saying something that is far more extreme than anything I actually ever said, so actually it is you who is making extremist claims. I felt there was too much singing and music. Singing and music seemed to be the dominant paradigm in worship. To claim that I said that there cannot be any music and singing is to contort, distort and twist what I said.

 

[Dogbrain]

It is pointless obsessing over whether the original Greek was "boring" and "uninspiring."

Someone who loves to wallow in ignorance claimed that the New Testament was written specifically to sound fancy, or words to that effect. The New Testament was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. When one makes claims about how a book is "written", then it must refer to the original language of the work, not to translations. The New Testament WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH, therefore commentary on English versions is NOT valid regarding the style in which it was written.

If the NT can be translated into the world's many languages and sound fancy, spectacular and dramatic then how it sounded in the original Greek is of little consequence.

You are as ignorant of translation as of anything else, evidently. It matters a GREAT DEAL what the style of the original Greek is, because emulating THAT style is more true to both the intended message AND how that message was meant to be delivered. Failure to accurately portray both is a failure in translation. However, according to you, failing to accurately portray how the message was transmitted doesn't matter.

You did not change my opinion on the NT being written to be dramatic, fancy and sensational. It is not because I choose to be ignorant,

It is exactly because you choose to be ignorant. You are so ignorant and narrow-minded that you consider the English translations to which you are familiar to be the end-all and be-all of the New Testament. You prove it by saying that the original Greek doesn't matter.

I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. When I said "singing and dancing," I meant those three words to be taken together, not to literally mean singing and dancing separately, but the nature of the worship.

Ah, so, when you write "dancing", you don't actually MEAN "dancing". Heh. Cute little dishonest shuffle you do. So, when you write "New Testament", do you actually man "potrziebie fonebone"? You have been caught out in an outright lie and now whine and backpedal about it.

Singing and music seemed to be the dominant paradigm in worship.

Then you have had an extremely tiny and limited experience with worship and have ignorantly extended your next-to-zero level of experience to cover the entire world.

 

[Dragonseer]

Someone who loves to wallow in ignorance claimed that the New Testament was written specifically to sound fancy, or words to that effect.

You are as ignorant of translation as of anything else, evidently.

It is exactly because you choose to be ignorant. You are so ignorant and narrow-minded that you consider the English translations to which you are familiar to be the end-all and be-all of the New Testament.

Ah, so, when you write "dancing", you don't actually MEAN "dancing". Heh. Cute little dishonest shuffle you do. So, when you write "New Testament", do you actually man "potrziebie fonebone"? You have been caught out in an outright lie and now whine and backpedal about it.

Then you have had an extremely tiny and limited experience with worship and have ignorantly extended your next-to-zero level of experience to cover the entire world.

Let me see if I have this right... A self-professed Christian--who is to be Christ-like--calls another forum member ignorant five times in one post. And just for kicks, throws in: narrow-mindedness, dishonestly, lying, and backpedaling.

You must be a real hoot at parties.

 

[Saltmeister]

Someone who loves to wallow in ignorance claimed that the New Testament was written specifically to sound fancy, or words to that effect.

FYI, I said it was a weakness but it does not mean I don't accept a religion for what it is and I believe it's the way it was supposed to work. If this is what provoked your hostility, then I am sorry if you are offended, but there was no malice in what I said.

You are as ignorant of translation as of anything else, evidently. It matters a GREAT DEAL what the style of the original Greek is, because emulating THAT style is more true to both the intended message AND how that message was meant to be delivered. Failure to accurately portray both is a failure in translation. However, according to you, failing to accurately portray how the message was transmitted doesn't matter.

You are talking about the style. I was saying that the style did not matter and it did not matter particularly in the way that you claimed it did. Your argument was that the NT was written in "Koine Greek" and that you couldn't express anything fancy, spectacular and sensational with Koine Greek. Koine Greek means "common Greek," right?

Just because it was written in common Greek did not mean it could not convey anything fancy and sensational. You don't have to have sophisticated knowledge of a language to be fancy, spectacular and sensational with what you say. You don't have to be a professor or academic.

The people of the time were particularly passionate about messianism, the afterlife, eternal life and a relationship with the divine. That was what I meant by it being fancy, spectacular and sensational. If they were not fancy and spectacular, why did people want to tell the world about it? These were big ideas and big ideas did not have to be expressed in sophisticated Greek. Common Greek would suffice. Putting it in common Greek meant that the NT was more compatible with a wider audience.

Failure to accurately portray both is a failure in translation. However, according to you, failing to accurately portray how the message was transmitted doesn't matter.

For many languages, when you want to translate into them from Greek, it is near impossible to convey the style of the original, so it is ridiculous to suggest that you have to convey both to accurately convey the original message. Translations would have to lose the original style more often just to retain the original meaning.

It is exactly because you choose to be ignorant. You are so ignorant and narrow-minded that you consider the English translations to which you are familiar to be the end-all and be-all of the New Testament. You prove it by saying that the original Greek doesn't matter.

I never said the original Greek didn't matter. Again, you are exaggerating what I said. Of course it matters. Without the original Greek you wouldn't have a translation. It is the style that doesn't matter. I said I didn't care what it sounded like in the original Greek. What mattered was the meaning. The meaning is what you want transferred into a translation, not the style.

Ah, so, when you write "dancing", you don't actually MEAN "dancing". Heh. Cute little dishonest shuffle you do. So, when you write "New Testament", do you actually man "potrziebie fonebone"? You have been caught out in an outright lie and now whine and backpedal about it.

I told you what I meant. I was talking about the nature of worship, and by "dancing" I was describing in metaphorical and figurative terms how churches were often driven by something I could liken to verbal and physical excitement. I didn't mean it literally. You are just nitpicking on a technicality and for you to nitpick on something that wasn't the actual point I was making in that paragraph it is you that is being dishonest here. You are making it seem like "dancing" was the point I was trying to make.

When Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, was he doing a "dishonest shuffle" with his words? When he said the Temple would be destroyed and raised in three days, was that a dishonest shuffle? Were Christians whining and backpedalling when they said Jesus was really referring to himself? If you enjoy insulting people by calling them ignorant, maybe you are wallowing in ignorance yourself by your lack of knowledge of Scripture.

Your last post was peppered with insulting language. It seems that you enjoy insulting fellow forum members. That seems to be your primary interest here on these forums. You called Raksha a bigot in the "Knowledge instead of Faith, Direct Experience Instead of Dogma" thread. I think if you really followed her posts you would find that she is far from being a bigot. She simply has a lot of anger toward certain groups and she makes it clear that it is anger. That is not hate mongering.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/knowledge-instead-of-faith-direct-12865-8.html

You have said other disparaging things about people in these forums and one trend I have noticed especially is you insulting people's intelligence by calling them ignorant and saying they have a low IQ. You chose to interpret what I said literally because you saw an opportunity to be insulting. You are halfway between being a benign forum user and a malicious poster. You have not caught me out on a lie. Instead, I have identified you as a someone well on his way to being a troll. A good move for you now is to decide that this is not the legacy you want on these forums. Any experienced and rational forum member here knows when they have gone in a dangerous and unhelpful direction. I highly recommend you back off from insulting people's intelligence.

Then you have had an extremely tiny and limited experience with worship and have ignorantly extended your next-to-zero level of experience to cover the entire world.

This is another example of you saying something insulting. Do you ever realise when you go too far? A little bit is fine but you have been doing it consistently and persistently. Saying that I have "next-to-zero" and "extremely tiny" experience is you pushing it too far. What are you trying to do, humiliate me? Do you think it helps your argument if you insult someone's intelligence? I consider it an underhanded method of getting an advantage over an opponent in a debate or heated discussion.

You signed up to this message board in August 2008. That is fairly recent. Maybe the reason why you say things to disparage individual forum members so consistently and persistently is because you lack experience here?

 

[shawn]

Your last post was peppered with insulting language. It seems that you enjoy insulting fellow forum members. That seems to be your primary interest here on these forums. You called Raksha a bigot in the "Knowledge instead of Faith, Direct Experience Instead of Dogma" thread. I think if you really followed her posts you would find that she is far from being a bigot. She simply has a lot of anger toward certain groups and she makes it clear that it is anger. That is not hate mongering.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/knowledge-instead-of-faith-direct-12865-8.html

You have said other disparaging things about people in these forums and one trend I have noticed especially is you insulting people's intelligence by calling them ignorant and saying they have a low IQ. You chose to interpret what I said literally because you saw an opportunity to be insulting. You are halfway between being a benign forum user and a malicious poster. You have not caught me out on a lie. Instead, I have identified you as a someone well on his way to being a troll. A good move for you now is to decide that this is not the legacy you want on these forums. Any experienced and rational forum member here knows when they have gone in a dangerous and unhelpful direction. I highly recommend you back off from insulting people's intelligence.



This is another example of you saying something insulting. Do you ever realise when you go too far? A little bit is fine but you have been doing it consistently and persistently. Saying that I have "next-to-zero" and "extremely tiny" experience is you pushing it too far. What are you trying to do, humiliate me? Do you think it helps your argument if you insult someone's intelligence? I consider it an underhanded method of getting an advantage over an opponent in a debate or heated discussion.

You signed up to this message board in August 2008. That is fairly recent. Maybe the reason why you say things to disparage individual forum members so consistently and persistently is because you lack experience here?

He cannot help himself it seems.
So either he is a very bitter individual or he is a shill with an agenda.
It happens all over the net on many other forums as well.
Sometimes these individuals are just bitter and full of ire.
Other times they are specifically targeting and baiting on purpose so as to achieve an objective.
I am not saying that this is the case here, but it seems that the MO is to be very insulting and rude...consistently.
It was one of the reasons I stopped coming here for the past several months.

 

[Amergin]

Why do people try to change Christianity?

Because it is broken.

Seriously if people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

Some people are followers of Jesus of Nazareth. They take his teachings seriously. They try to live the life Jesus preached. This included healing the sick, transferring some of the wealth from the rich to the poor, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, kindness to the neglected of society, and feeding the starving. Jesus preached love thy neighbour.

Other people support the Christ God and his false religion, Christianity. They believe in greed and wealth even if others lose. They refuse to pay for healing of the poor. They oppose paying to feed the poor. They favour blind belief in the Christ (created in the 4th century) instead of intuitive rational morality. They believe that politically correct belief erases past sins. Instead of love thy neighbour, they preach hate. They hate the followers of other religions. They often hate black people. They hate homosexuals. They hate non-believers and "wrong" believers.

Jesus Followers are 180 degrees opposite to Christians. Christianity definitely needs to be fixed and reformed from its evil path.

Do people do it constantly to Islam and Judaism and I just do not see it?

There certainly many breakaway sects of those religions, enough to kill each other just as Protestants kill Catholics.

I mean the Bible and Christ are about the only two things Christianity has right?
Well if people do not want to believe those then how can they even call themselves Christians?

Jesus' message is incompatible with so-called Christianity. The Christian Church dismissed the meaning of the gospels. They dismissed Jesus' denial of being god and created a humanoid God called the Christ. Instead of the moral teachings and love of Jesus, the Church focused on acquisition of wealth, political power, and belief rather than true moral behaviour.

Where would you draw the line on using that classification?

There is hardly a line. It is a division of light and darkness and between goodness and evil. Jesus of Nazareth would consider Christianity false, and evil. His cultural beliefs when he lived would likely think Satan started the Christian Church. The Christian legacy of endless wars, persecution, oppression, corruption, sexual perversion, and wealth certainly seems more Satanic than Holy.

Amerginn

 

[17th Angel]

Let me see if I have this right... A self-professed Christian--who is to be Christ-like--calls another forum member ignorant five times in one post. And just for kicks, throws in: narrow-mindedness, dishonestly, lying, and backpedaling.

You must be a real hoot at parties.

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number 17 and the letter I, for Ignorance.

 

[Thomas]

The short answer is that people try and rewrite Christianity to suit the idiom of the age, rather than realise that Christianity transcends the ages ...

The common complaint that Christianity is stuck in the past, or old fashioned, really means that Christianity should change its spots according to cultural whim, as culture does ...

As a generalism (which might well have been covered), I think there are three 'eras' of change in Christianity.

The first is up to the Reformation, and change here was objective and philosophical — dissent and schism came about as a result of those who sought to preserve the truth as they saw it at all cost. Arius, Nestorius et al all sought to defend what they saw as the truth faith against error.

From Luther on (and indeed the seeds were laid before him) the foundation and fundamental nature of change was subjective, but man still saw himself as part of the whole, but this whole was shrinking, with the emergence of nationalism. People sought to shape a Christianity according to the world, rather than shape the world according to Christianity (this is blindingly obvious in the case of Luther (who suffered massive psychological issues and could not conceive of man other than utterly corrupt), Calvin (who's definition of those destined to be saved matched exactly the definition of the emerging Swiss bourgeoisie and Zwingli (an army officer who saw faith as a soldier might view his standard).

The third, and most recent, is the effect of the subjectivism of the Enlightenment flavoured by the ideals of Romance Movement, which itself was a reaction against a Modernism determined by Industrialism and commercialism. This gives rise to the re-invention of faeries, angels and nature religion, the emergence of spiritism, esoteric and occult orders, theosophy and anthroposophy, etc., etc. and latterly the emergence of Christian fundamentalism and the emergence of 'my friend Jesus' — in which Christianity becomes anything anyone wants it to be.

Thomas

 

[wil]

The short answer is that people try and rewrite Christianity to suit the idiom of the age, rather than realise that Christianity transcends the ages ...

The common complaint that Christianity is stuck in the past, or old fashioned, really means that Christianity should change its spots according to cultural whim, as culture does ...

As a generalism (which might well have been covered), I think there are three 'eras' of change in Christianity.

The first is up to the Reformation, and change here was objective and philosophical — dissent and schism came about as a result of those who sought to preserve the truth as they saw it at all cost. Arius, Nestorius et al all sought to defend what they saw as the truth faith against error.

From Luther on (and indeed the seeds were laid before him) the foundation and fundamental nature of change was subjective, but man still saw himself as part of the whole, but this whole was shrinking, with the emergence of nationalism. People sought to shape a Christianity according to the world, rather than shape the world according to Christianity (this is blindingly obvious in the case of Luther (who suffered massive psychological issues and could not conceive of man other than utterly corrupt), Calvin (who's definition of those destined to be saved matched exactly the definition of the emerging Swiss bourgeoisie and Zwingli (an army officer who saw faith as a soldier might view his standard).

The third, and most recent, is the effect of the subjectivism of the Enlightenment flavoured by the ideals of Romance Movement, which itself was a reaction against a Modernism determined by Industrialism and commercialism. This gives rise to the re-invention of faeries, angels and nature religion, the emergence of spiritism, esoteric and occult orders, theosophy and anthroposophy, etc., etc. and latterly the emergence of Christian fundamentalism and the emergence of 'my friend Jesus' — in which Christianity becomes anything anyone wants it to be.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas....

Would you say that is a decidedly Catholic viewpoint?

And since this was after the reformation was 'the church' also subjective from then on out instead of objective?

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
[SIZE=+2]22, 1633)[/SIZE]Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture: This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

Lastly, what changed....science or the bible or the interpretation about the bible by the church?

To me the bible and christianity must be a living evolving thing...otherwise it will be tossed aside as the rest of us move on...​

 

[Ahanu]

Has anybody asked why the Jesus group tried to change Judaism in the first century????????? If so, point me to the post; there are 24 pages to search through here!

 

[Ahanu]

In post number 270, Dor writes:

. . . the original point of this post was because at the time we were having lot of posts about people that want to change Christianity. Like John Shelby Spong for instance.

John Shelby Spong desires to get to the original Jesus experience. In order to do that, Spong feels he must unlearn what he has absorbed from 21st century Christianity.

For example, think about and question how an apocalyptic Jew would write in the first century. Would this writer report like a modern day reporter, or would he report everything through the lens of the the Books of Moses and other Jewish wisdom literature during his time? What if we could transport a 1st century apocalyptic Jew from his time period into our time period in order to report about events, such as 9/11 or global warming? How would he describe these dramatic events that are shaping our world? Surely, he wouldn't report the information as we hear it from our modern reporters on CNN. However, this is how many 21st century Christians read the bible: as if the writers of the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are modern CNN reporters. Bishop Shelby Spong is trying to read the bible like the apocalyptic Jew of the first century intended it to be read. Think about the understanding that was lost in transition from a Jewish culture to an American culture, for example. In my entire church-going history, I've never heard a preacher link the narratives in the gospels to the Jewish seasons, as Spong does. Why is this?

Reflect why it is that, in 24 pages of discussion in this thread, nobody has asked why the original Jesus group saw the need for a new revelation. Could it not be that they wanted to get to the original Moses experience (just as Spong wants to get to the original Jesus experience)? Did they not find it in Jesus, who gave His followers another Torah? Why did they see the need of another Torah?

Reflect.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Would you say that is a decidedly Catholic viewpoint?

No, just mine.

Re Galileo, it's not as simple a picture as people like to paint; our fault, his fault ... the scientific community that wanted him brought down, and played the church quite cleverly ... at one point, the pope was the only man defending him, then he chose to ridicule the pope, and really he'd burnt his bridges.

But yes, my three-step generalisation is a good rule of thumb. But each will have aspects of the other ...

Lastly, what changed....science or the bible or the interpretation about the bible by the church?

I like to think the coincidene of the best of science and religion — Scripture criticism was initiated by religion, and went on within it. It's when you get polarisation you get problems.

To me the bible and christianity must be a living evolving thing...otherwise it will be tossed aside as the rest of us move on...

As I see it, Galileo shifted the earth from the centre of the universe and put the sun there. Now man has shifted the sun and put himself there.

Christianity in its essence has been constantly on message: God stands at the centre of everything.

If moving on means tossing that aside, and insisting that everything is relative to me, then move where you will, but I'm staying here, thanks.

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

The short answer is that people try and rewrite Christianity to suit the idiom of the age, rather than realise that Christianity transcends the ages ...

The common complaint that Christianity is stuck in the past, or old fashioned, really means that Christianity should change its spots according to cultural whim, as culture does ...

As a generalism (which might well have been covered), I think there are three 'eras' of change in Christianity.

Your three eras include the following: reformation, nationalism, and enlightenment. Do other eras of change exist? Are there only three that we can draw from history?

Since Christianity transcends the ages, then it's plausible to assume that Christianity (the true Christianity, that is) will remained unchanged 50,000 years in the future, despite the fact human culture will be radically different from what it is now and that it will be questionable to even call ourselves homo sapiens (since we are merging our biology with machines) in the near future. So not only is human culture (including language, gestures, art, and so on) subject to change, but our bodies are too . . . yet Christianity remains unchangeable?

What remains unchangeable? Jesus' miracles, like walking on water or literally raising the dead, are the examples I have in mind; to say these are not literal events is to change Christianity. If people were miraculously healed, then why did our sciences and medicines even develop? Besides, we could simply choose to worship a God that's a miracle-worker, invading the universe whenever we call. Am I just trying to "rewrite Christianity to suit the idiom of the age," as you say, Thomas, when I say that Jesus didn't literally raise dead people to life? Yes, according to you, I am rewriting Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

Your three eras include the following: reformation, nationalism, and enlightenment. Do other eras of change exist? Are there only three that we can draw from history?

Not at all. As I said, a generalisation. As a Christian Hermeticist, I can break it down any number of ways.

Since Christianity transcends the ages, then it's plausible to assume that Christianity (the true Christianity, that is) will remained unchanged 50,000 years in the future, despite the fact human culture will be radically different from what it is now and that it will be questionable to even call ourselves homo sapiens (since we are merging our biology with machines) in the near future.

Christian doctrine does not change. Our vision of ourselves changes according to our relationship to the Divine, but that relationship remains unchanged. Humans can undergo all manner of change, but human nature remains essentially the same.

The data of the Creed, for example, is metacosmic and therefore is not subject to temporal conditioning.

Thomas

 

[The Word]

Why do people try to change Christianity?

Seriously if people do not like Christianity why don't people just find another religion instead of trying to carve Christianity up to fit them?

Do people do it constantly to Islam and Judaism and I just do not see it?

I mean the Bible and Christ are about the only 2 things Christianity has right?
Well if people do not want to believe those then how can they even call themselves Christians?

Where would you draw the line on using that classification?

No religion was started by God's authority. Christianity was started by the Roman government after they killed all the true saints.

 

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Really if you want to see what it was like we have the Gospels which are the best examples of what it was like 2000 years ago. This is all that is necessary.

People think that they must argue the fine points all through history, even in the Gospels the disciples already show glimpses of squabbling over useless points and Christ points out the flaws in their thinking .
Man Is not able to fully grasp what it really means if we are to be humble and give authority to Christ. So we should not constantly try to control others as we are not in authority. This is why people try to change parts continuously just as the disciples wanted to be considered for the highest position in heaven right in the Gospels with Jesus walking next to them. We are no different than we were 2000 years ago. Nothing has really changed as some would think by the standards set forth by Christ.

 

[Thomas]

No religion was started by God's authority. Christianity was started by the Roman government after they killed all the true saints.

Not according to Scripture.

The rise of Christianity overtook Rome, rather than the other way round. By the time Constantine was angling for power, he saw that Christianity was the one forced under which the whole empire could be united.

According to estimates, by the start of the 4th century, when the Emperor recognised 'Christianity', there were already some 3-5million Christians across the empire.

The term 'Christian' was first recorded in Acts 26:28, when Agrippa refers to the followers of Christ by this name.

The first reference to the term 'Catholic' with reference to the Church is in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD:
"Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

It is obvious from the letter that the term 'Catholic Church' was not a name declared by Ignatius, he doesn't explain it, nor defend it, but rather uses a name that must have been in common usage at the time, so was a self-designation of the Church before the close of the 1st century.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:19

"Behold, I am with you always even until the end of the world!"
Matthew 28:20

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

People think that they must argue the fine points all through history, even in the Gospels the disciples already show glimpses of squabbling over useless points and Christ points out the flaws in their thinking.

This is why the Catholic Church remains true to the letter and spirit of Scripture. The point is that the squabbles were recorded, as was the lesson, and the solution.

That squabbles continue just shows people ignore the spirit of Scripture and choose to render it according to the spirit of the ego, or bend it to the spirit of the age.

Man Is not able to fully grasp what it really means if we are to be humble and give authority to Christ.

Well if that were true, then Scripture would be 'impossible' which it patently is not.

Might I also add the witness of the saints down through the ages is itself evidence than man can understand Scripture, and rise to its call.

Nothing has really changed as some would think by the standards set forth by Christ.

Indeed not ... man is still man.

Thomas