Christianity Subforum Poll

[China Cat Sunflower]

An analogy! Everyone loves an analogy, right?

Analogy: Imagine that this forum is about cars instead of religion. I know this will offend at least on person, but let's just say that Christianity is now the Chevrolet board. Maybe Abrahamic is American Cars, and Chevrolet, Ford and Chrysler are the sub forums. Are you with me so far?

There are Chevy purists kinda like traditionalists or conservatives. But there are many kinds of Chevy enthusiasts beside people who want everything absolutely stock. And there are bound to be people who've had a crummy experience with Chevy, or think Ford rules Chevy sucks, or are running a Chevy engine in some other brand of car, or are looking for info on how to get parts for older models, or are interested in mods, tips, and tricks.

Now think: would you want to participate in a Chevy Forum where purists were given any kind of special status? I mean, is it a forum about Chevy's and all things Chevrolet, or an old boy club for purists?

I don't understand why the Christianity board isn't purely about Christianity. Factions really stink.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I voted to remove lib and make it all one Christianity forum. My reason is that I hope we can use places like the lounge to gather without labels and differences..

With everyone coming here.. It gives me a bigger audience to share my faith with

I never wanted to liberal Christianity forum.. I think it just further divided the group than it already was with all the labels.

I will STILL have issues with people that claim Christianity is without a Christ centered salvation. I will have issues in a Christianity without Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrection 3 days after.. I will still have issues with a Christianity without Jesus as King of Kings Lord of Lords and the great I AM that was before Moses. I will have issues with cafeteria style Christianity that doesnt believe the bible is the living word of God...Im sorry but thats just how it is.. But thats me and Im not going to compromise on that.. but I think theres a diverse community here and we have so many wonderful people that I think we can have heated discussions and still care about each other.

Right?

Right

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

With everyone coming here.. It gives me a bigger audience to share my faith with


Right?

Right

Right on!

 

[wil]

Metaphysics is primarily a philosophical commentary on esoterism which is primarily a mythopeic commentary ... so I would say metaphysics seeks always what lies behind the veil of appearance?

Hey — was that 'yee haw' me sounding big-headed?

I can go with everything but the always...I see metaphysics as not only reading the literal but also the layers...an exploration of both and the combination thereof...beyond the physical literal appearance.

naw the yee haw was appreciation of your studies.

I voted to remove lib and make it all one Christianity forum. My reason is that I hope we can use places like the lounge to gather without labels and differences.. ... I will STILL have issues with people that claim Christianity is without a Christ centered salvation. I will have issues in a Christianity without Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrection 3 days after.. I will still have issues with a Christianity without Jesus as King of Kings Lord of Lords and the great I AM that was before Moses. I will have issues with cafeteria style Christianity that doesnt believe the bible is the living word of God...Im sorry but thats just how it is.. But thats me and Im not going to compromise on that.. but I think theres a diverse community here and we have so many wonderful people that I think we can have heated discussions and still care about each other.

Right?

Right, but I don't think they always need to be heated. I have no need to toss your belief in anything, I just want to be able to discuss everything. No sacred cows, I'm not cutting down the cross or calling it a stave or saying it didn't happen...But I want to discuss it with people that think any of that or all of that. There is one big reason to do that in the Christian forum vs. the Abrahamic or Comparative, or Esoteric...because we are discussing Christianity and things in regards to the lives and times of Jesus...

Do inconsistencies in the bible bother me, no, does it bother me that someone selected the books 1600 years ago and we haven't decided to review it...when everything, everything else has marched on?? uh, yes.

Does it bother me that it appears the 50% of Christians still think the bible indicates Mary Magdelene was a whore? Yes, it shows where we as a group are in this exploration. And the main reason we stay stagnated in the past is because we aren't willing to question... Which is the same reason we create greedy televangelists, and pedophile priests...because we refuse to question...He's a man of the cloth, it couldn't be.

Can we together as a group and seriously explore the stories we hold sacred and see how whether they emit light or stand up to it? Can we decide to no longer allow anyone to hide behind a robe, a collar or a bible and just believe whatever pablum they promote because they or someone else decided they were worthy?

As discussed how many Pagantypeprophets who could easily be the troubled Abraham or Ezekial...do we not listen to because we feel they aren't up to our respect...before we've even heard them?

I'm ready to be one big happy family...as long as we start with love, and decide we want to nurture this garden, and allow everyone to grow...

 

[seattlegal]

I voted to remove lib and make it all one Christianity forum. My reason is that I hope we can use places like the lounge to gather without labels and differences..

With everyone coming here.. It gives me a bigger audience to share my faith with

I never wanted to liberal Christianity forum.. I think it just further divided the group than it already was with all the labels.

I will STILL have issues with people that claim Christianity is without a Christ centered salvation. I will have issues in a Christianity without Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrection 3 days after.. I will still have issues with a Christianity without Jesus as King of Kings Lord of Lords and the great I AM that was before Moses. I will have issues with cafeteria style Christianity that doesnt believe the bible is the living word of God...Im sorry but thats just how it is.. But thats me and Im not going to compromise on that.. but I think theres a diverse community here and we have so many wonderful people that I think we can have heated discussions and still care about each other.

Right?

Right

Hmm...

Matthew 10
Christ Brings Division

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 12
Christ Brings Division

49 “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”​

 

[taijasi]

It is Kurukshetra, yes, and those who are not "for Christ" are "against Him" ... but seattlegal, don't you think this refers to what is in a person's heart (and also to party lines) - rather than what creed we follow?

Surely the sword is the flaming sword of Manjushri, discriminating virtue from vice, the values of the Spirit from those of the flesh (vices) ... the treasures in Heaven (and all that is concerned with storing them up) from the material plunder - and the enterprises, ideologies and paradigms that are all about selfish acquiesence, or Greed.

Krishna was able to war against his own nearest and dearest because he understood that they were but tempoarily mis-identified with the involutionary tendencies ... with the things of this world, rather than with Eternal Spiritual Verities.

The Sword that Christ brings, I think, has everything to do with discrimination - or discernment. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to recognize, and be digusted, by the materialism that characterizes even 21st Century Humanity ... nor does it take a University Professor or Divinity Scholar to recognize the Christ in his fellow man, and reach out to that person in aid, in Service, in Love.

Mother Teresa wielded Christ's Sword. And she did it so gracefully, that most of us have probably never even thought of her as the WARRIOR that she was. But she fought the good fight, just as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela. What is it that distinguishes these great souls, on "one side" of the battlefield of Kurukshetra, fighting for Christ ... from the Adolf Hitlers, the Mao Tse Tungs, the Otto von Bismarcks, and the Saddam Husseins, opposite from Krishna & Arjuna, waging war against the Christ?

The fight is not one of person against person, or group against group ... it is the same fight which occurs within every human heart, just perhaps on a larger scale. This is the jihad of which Mohammad spoke, the Holy War in which we are all engaged, whose climax is the present Armageddon, and whose eventual outcome - is the resolution of which we all dream, and the Peace for which some labor tirelessly, even willing to sacrifice all else - if only that would accomplish the goal!

What irony, that we see so much violence and bloodshed in the name of Peace and World Brotherhood, or proselytism - as if we can beat/browbeat the Spirit of Love into someone who is desperately seeking a direct experience of this Divine Quality. Christ taught how?

By example ...

 

[seattlegal]

It is Kurukshetra, yes, and those who are not "for Christ" are "against Him" ... but seattlegal, don't you think this refers to what is in a person's heart (and also to party lines) - rather than what creed we follow?

Surely the sword is the flaming sword of Manjushri, discriminating virtue from vice, the values of the Spirit from those of the flesh (vices) ... the treasures in Heaven (and all that is concerned with storing them up) from the material plunder - and the enterprises, ideologies and paradigms that are all about selfish acquiesence, or Greed.

Krishna was able to war against his own nearest and dearest because he understood that they were but tempoarily mis-identified with the involutionary tendencies ... with the things of this world, rather than with Eternal Spiritual Verities.

Well, Krishna used every religious argument to try to appease Arjuna's troubled conscience over going to war to kill his neighbors. {btw, doesn't Kurukshetra mean 'disambiguation?'}

The Sword that Christ brings, I think, has everything to do with discrimination - or discernment. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to recognize, and be digusted, by the materialism that characterizes even 21st Century Humanity ... nor does it take a University Professor or Divinity Scholar to recognize the Christ in his fellow man, and reach out to that person in aid, in Service, in Love.

Mother Teresa wielded Christ's Sword. And she did it so gracefully, that most of us have probably never even thought of her as the WARRIOR that she was. But she fought the good fight, just as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela. What is it that distinguishes these great souls, on "one side" of the battlefield of Kurukshetra, fighting for Christ ... from the Adolf Hitlers, the Mao Tse Tungs, the Otto von Bismarcks, and the Saddam Husseins, opposite from Krishna & Arjuna, waging war against the Christ?

"I am liberating man from the degrading chimera known as `conscience'." ~ Adolf Hitler​

The fight is not one of person against person, or group against group ... it is the same fight which occurs within every human heart, just perhaps on a larger scale. This is the jihad of which Mohammad spoke, the Holy War in which we are all engaged, whose climax is the present Armageddon, and whose eventual outcome - is the resolution of which we all dream, and the Peace for which some labor tirelessly, even willing to sacrifice all else - if only that would accomplish the goal!

Agreed. The battle is over hearts and minds.

What irony, that we see so much violence and bloodshed in the name of Peace and World Brotherhood, or proselytism - as if we can beat/browbeat the Spirit of Love into someone who is desperately seeking a direct experience of this Divine Quality. Christ taught how?

By example ...

These battles are not necessarily religious. They can be political or ideological, as well. {More tactics of appeasing a troubled conscience?}

 

[Thomas]

Christ taught how?
By example ...

And the message was 'you're either with me, or against me' — that much is plain.

Christ loved the world, unflinchingly and inclusively, but He is no-one's fool, and no-one tells Him what to do, where to go, or what to say — He knows His mind, and that was it, what you thought was of little consequence ... He is the Sacrifical Lamb, but He is no man's whore. Remember He said:
Luke 9:59-62: "Let the dead bury the dead."
Matthew 7:6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you... "

Christ is by no measure 'liberal' and had no time for liberal ideas or sentimentality ... I rather think He'd make short shrift of this forum, for a start.

Thomas

 

[InLove]

Christ is by no measure 'liberal' and had no time for liberal ideas or sentimentality ... I rather think He'd make short shrift of this forum, for a start.

Hey Thomas.

Well, I agree to a certain extent. If He visited today, He would likely have some other immediate prorities. However, from what I read about Him during His last visit, He strikes me as the type who might just sit in. Granted, He might be amused. Yeah, I doubt that He would label Himself "liberal" or anything else. And I'm certain that He would speak authoritatively about some things and bring some enlightenment to the discussion. But I like to think that He would approve of our interest in His mission, even if we are at times, completely confused. Whaddya think?

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Prober]

And the message was 'you're either with me, or against me' — that much is plain.

Thomas

Amen!

 

[Thomas]

...I'm a traditional Christian, one that would be prior to the creed, when it was all open to be discussed and each of us had a booklet we read and shared....and nobody was in control of the big scroll, and nobody selected and collected our little booklets canonizing some of them and rejecting others...

Trouble is, Wil, it was never like that. We'd all love it to be, but human nature being what it is, everybody wanted to cash in on the deal — Simon Magus in Acts asked outright how much money Peter wanted for the sourece of his power ... the Church was forced to defend itself right from the outset.

From our best sources, from about the mid-second century, it took three years' instruction before one was even considered for Baptism, and the Catechumen was sworn to secrecy throughout— The Discipline of the Arcana — and only those chosen by their contemporaries were put forward (The Arian dispute in the 4th century made what had hitherto been unspoken, public knowledge).

And what was the Big Secret ... The Creed.

The Creed in its baptismal formula dates at the latest from the close of the first century. Even assuming that the text in the close of Matthew, to baptise 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' was a later interpolation, the Didache has this formula.

The Creed formulated at Nicea in 325 was derived, we think, from the Baptismal Confession employed by the Church of Jerusalem, or perhaps Antioch. The common notion that Constantine made it up, or the Council composed it out of thin air, is a nonsense.

Once baptised a slave would pray alongside a senator and a centurion, with no distinction between them. They would share the same bread, drink from the same cup.

But one fault and you're out. The Christians called themselves 'saints' then because they lived to an austere rule, and it took a Council to decide that it was OK to let sinners back in, the popular vote was, once you're out, you're out.

So to all of us, let us be traditional, or alternative, or liberal, or New Age, let us be what we like ... but please let us be real, as much as that is possible, otherwise we might as well just make it all up as we go along ...

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

There was a great thread about this (agendas) recently, I thought ... or maybe I just imagined it. I can't find it, at any rate, and I wish I could put my finger on it right now. `Dialogue about dialogue' was good, but I thought there was another about motivations for being here, or something. Perhaps I interpreted it out of context ... oh well ...
Peace,
~andrew

Did you mean this -

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/what-are-you-looking-for-573.html

???

s.

 

[wil]

Originally Posted by wil
...I'm a traditional Christian, one that would be prior to the creed, when it was all open to be discussed and each of us had a booklet we read and shared....and nobody was in control of the big scroll, and nobody selected and collected our little booklets canonizing some of them and rejecting others...

Trouble is, Wil, it was never like that. We'd all love it to be, but human nature being what it is, everybody wanted to cash in on the deal

That fist 1000 years of the bible exhibit indicated that they discovered that the Christian books, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts and Paul's letters. were made into little bound booklets, individually the cannonized and the uncannonized and followers carried one or two around on their persons. When they got together they would share the insights they got from reading them, read others books, and contemplate the writings...there was no bible, was no organized group of books, they were all spiritual writings that they discussed....

 

[Thomas]

That fist 1000 years of the bible exhibit indicated that they discovered that the Christian books, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts and Paul's letters. were made into little bound booklets, individually the cannonized and the uncannonized and followers carried one or two around on their persons. When they got together they would share the insights they got from reading them, read others books, and contemplate the writings...there was no bible, was no organized group of books, they were all spiritual writings that they discussed....

Well if that's the impression you were given, that's somewhat inaccurate. Are these catechumen under instruction?

I think you've been given a very sentimentalised view of the reality. What we know without doubt is the Confession of Faith was Creedal statements which the catechumen made at Baptism: "Do you believe...?", "Yes, I believe."

No ifs, buts, maybes ... this is the Creed. Yes or No.

Baptism entitled the new-born Christian to partake of the Eucharistic Supper, which was forbidden to the catechumen, even to observe.

What you describe might be the case in someone's spare time, and no doubt tracts were studied, but to assume that there was no structure nor a hierarchy is to make an error. Even in Acts we read of deacons being sent out to minister to the Church because the Apostles were becoming bogged down in administrative affairs.

The Canon was not formally ratified until the Reformation, but the Church was very quick, when need be, to say what was NOT scripture. It was nowhere near as free-and-easy nor as open-ended as you'd like to think.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Well if that's the impression you were given, that's somewhat inaccurate. Are these catechumen under instruction?

I think you've been given a very sentimentalised view of the reality. What we know without doubt is the Confession of Faith was Creedal statements which the catechumen made at Baptism: "Do you believe...?", "Yes, I believe."

No ifs, buts, maybes ... this is the Creed. Yes or No.

Baptism entitled the new-born Christian to partake of the Eucharistic Supper, which was forbidden to the catechumen, even to observe.

What you describe might be the case in someone's spare time, and no doubt tracts were studied, but to assume that there was no structure nor a hierarchy is to make an error. Even in Acts we read of deacons being sent out to minister to the Church because the Apostles were becoming bogged down in administrative affairs.

The Canon was not formally ratified until the Reformation, but the Church was very quick, when need be, to say what was NOT scripture. It was nowhere near as free-and-easy nor as open-ended as you'd like to think.

Thomas

The 'church' the reason the 'church' was created was to contain all the churches that were out there no? I know Ethiopians who grew up and studied in their church which they believe to be largely unchanged over the years..

The museum piece at the Smithsonian indicates that these booklets were prevelant available in bazzars and a huge leap as Christianity basically introduced the book...it was done before but not in such volume...until that time the scroll was the common method.

I am not intimating that these folks did not visit or worship or study in churches, buildings, peoples homes. I believe fledgling christianity, wherever two or more are gathered happened everywhere....and I also believe what you say to be true...but that baptism, that sacrament, that eucharist was and dogma and tradition were not universal at the time...not until they were made universal/catholic and then heresy, non catholic was attempted to be systematically irradicated, and they did a yeoman's job at it.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Hmm...

Matthew 10​

Christ Brings Division​

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.​

Luke 12​

Christ Brings Division​

49 “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”​

Im curious what it was about my post that prompted you to post these verses.. Jesus loved the thieves and liars he didnt divide himself against them.. he scolded the priests that put themselves apart from those that needed them.

 

[seattlegal]

Im curious what it was about my post that prompted you to post these verses.. Jesus loved the thieves and liars he didnt divide himself against them.. he scolded the priests that put themselves apart from those that needed them.

The heated debate by the different "members of the household of the Christianity forums" has kinda been like a baptism of fire, hasn't it?
It keeps us from becoming weak-minded, if anything. An interesting question in this regards would be this: Have we been handling it like a dysfunctional family?

 

[Thomas]

but that baptism, that sacrament, that eucharist was and dogma and tradition were not universal at the time...not until they were made universal/catholic and then heresy, non catholic was attempted to be systematically irradicated, and they did a yeoman's job at it.

I think you'll find that's not the way it pans out, if you study the documents closely.

No-one who was not baptised was called Christian or able to participate in the rites. The Eucharist was the central focus of Christian life from Paul's time. Likewise the Didache (100AD) points to existing institutions and structures.

I'm not arguing against the books idea — I simply thing your vision of early Christrianity owes more to the post-pop West than 1st century Palestine.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi InLove —

But I like to think that He would approve of our interest in His mission, even if we are at times, completely confused. Whaddya think?

Well, a number of thoughts ...

When He comes again, we have a pretty good idea (Revelations) 'and we shall all be changed' — so discussion time is over ...

He is here now ... the Paraclete ...

But yes, I have a dreadful feeling that if He came back, he'd look at me and say, "And as for you, sunshine ... Peter and the boys are outside, they want a word... "

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

If we were going to draw lines, then perhaps historically there are some obvious delineations:

Traditional Christianity
Early Church, Latin and Greek theology and the development of Christology, Pneumatology and Trinity.

I don't think there's enough informed interest here to discuss doctrinal differences between East and West and the various Patriarchates, and the nuances of theology — deism, theism, monothelitism, monophysitism ... etc. Nor scholastic philosophy, etc...

Discussions in this area would be mainly historical reference.

Reformation Christianity
Sola Scriptura and Enlightenment philosophy, the proliferation of schismatic denominations to the present.

Discussions in this area would be mainly on the accent of the Post-Reformation churches and the role of denominational/individual interpretation.

Theology as such is still relatively 'conservative' although later American churches moved away from what was 'traditional' (eg the non-Divinity of the Son, refusal of the Trinity, etc.) towards a more 'fundamental' stance of extreme sola scriptura.

Post-Modernist Christianity
Non-denominationsl. Christianity as viewed through a post-modernist sensibility flavoured by the Romance Movement's rejection of authority, hierarchy, and the release of the individual to determine his/her own version Christianity - from the Romance tradition springs Liberal Christianity, New Age Christianity, Alternative Christianity ... no fixed doctrine ... accent on subjectivity ... and an interest in Hermeticism, paganism, spiritism, syncretism ...

Just some thoughts,

Thomas