or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › As a Christian I have a difficult time understanding...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

As a Christian I have a difficult time understanding... - Page 10

post #181 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkiwendy View Post

Anyhow, sorry OP - I got WAY off topic.
Me too- SORRY!!
post #182 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I mean, I am aware of the two major issues on a surface level (papal submission and the filioque) but yes, it would seem that the Church is the one in the right when you have a group that is rejecting a part of Her dogma. I mean, that is the defintion of heresy (Greek - meaning 'to choose') and so if a group is 'choosing' then I think it would be better to stay with the Church, not separate.
You assume much. "First Among Equals" does not equate with papal submission. And, if you were to ask "The Group", you would find that Rome was the one guilty of heresy. Funny how that works, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkiwendy View Post
Um, actually, the New Testament was written in Greek and translated into Latin (the Vulgate) in the 4th Century (A.D.) by St. Jerome, and there is a fair amount of excellent scholarship on whether or not Jerome's methodology (though extremely erudite) was right-on. St. Augustine, Jerome's contemporary, challenged his methods, particularly with respect to the translation of the Old Testament (which, of course, was written in Hebrew). All that to say that there were about 370 years between the creation of the Vulgate and the original speaking of Christ's words. Lots of water under the bridge (culturally, historically, geographically, etc. etc. etc.). Words are MAN MADE, we must always remember that.
I'm so glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. Latin may be the language of Rome, but that does not make it the language of The Church.
post #183 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkiwendy View Post
nope. I have to disagree. The purpose of the church is to be the hands and feet of Christ in the world (the Body of Christ).
I'm thinking that Stacy is referring to the institutional Church - not we, the members, the Body of Christ.
post #184 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB20005 View Post
To the OP:

I have been tossing and turning Christian doctrine that I was taught and sincerely believed in for the vast majority of my life around in my head for the past two years. I got to a point where I became very uncomfortable with Christian teachings because I had a hard time reconciling what Christian doctrine is and what I wanted it to be and admitting that they are two very different things.

After a lot of reading of the Bible and books by Christian writers, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be actually be a Christian is if you accept the Christian doctrine, which is Christ was sent by God to be a sacrifice for humanity to cover our original sin. He is the ultimate sacrifice and because we all have original sin (darn Adam and Eve!) there is no other way to truly be in God's grace, I guess short of following all the Old Testament sacrifices, which honestly wouldn't work (per Christian belief) because Christians believe Christ's sacrifice relieved them of the old system.

The crux of it all is: Christ died for your sins, He alone covers them, there is no other way to be in God's grace unless you accept His son's sacrifice.

So. I have a very hard time accepting this is it, the only way, period. That 2/3 of the world is going to be toasty because they don't believe this. And I found that I felt rather arrogant believing in a doctrine that condemned them when I was completely ignorant of all the other major religious beliefs in the world. (No, I am not suggesting all Christians are arrogant, I just happened to feel that way about myself because my ignorance dawned on me). I no longer call myself a Christian because I can't honestly say that I accept that. And I am seriously perplexed by the many, many liberal denominations that fall under the Christian umbrella because if you read the Bible, even if you don't accept it literally, there is really no escaping that ONE thing that defines Christianity- Christ's sacrifice. Trust me, I've looked and looked hard because I don't want it to be that way. I would love to be able to get on board with a feel-good, modern, liberal form of Christianity but from my own personal reading and studies they are simply no longer Christians per the Biblical definition.

Anyway, my point in even replying is that I read through and saw the usual bickering back and forth from those who are Christians and those who aren't about the faith. Christianity is divisive, period. There is no middle ground, really. And, from what you wrote, I would say you are not a Christian based on the Biblical definition. I think a lot of people want to hang onto their Christian identity because it is easier than abandoning family traditions or even having to try and find God in some other faith system. This has been my own experience. It was PAINFUL for me the first time I admitted to myself that I wasn't a Christian - not painful because I think I am going to Hell, but painful because it is hard to leave behind something as integral and binding and culturally significant as a religion.

Best wishes and peace to you. I hope you find what you are looking for. I am still searching and sometimes I wonder if I will search forever. I hope not.
Your thoughts on this are very similar to my own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB20005 View Post
She writes of the truth that the books of the New Testament in the Bible claim to have. The gnostic gospels sure have a very different Jesus inside of them, though. Some might even say that things He was credited in those books to have taught were "New Age" , and at the very least mirror eastern religious teachings. Have you read any of those gospels? Sure, I know the gnostic gospels were claimed heretical by the early Christians who later became the Catholics but I wonder if their version "won" simply because they had more resources, more powerful leaders? Will we ever know? Christianity was awfully diverse in the first two centuries following Christ's death and it is easy now 2,000 years later to discount those other versions simply because their memberships were oppressed and they didn't have material resources that survived to pass them along. The early orthodox (note the lowercase "o") church waged a very successful campaign to stamp out any version of Christianity that didn't agree with their own, save for the large cache of texts at Nag Hammadi that were hidden there are almost no other original sources of these variations left.
This is something that I have pondered since I was a teen.
post #185 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtiger View Post
You assume much. "First Among Equals" does not equate with papal submission. And, if you were to ask "The Group", you would find that Rome was the one guilty of heresy. Funny how that works, eh?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referencing. The Group? As I said, I don't really know much about the Great Schism. Care to elaborate?
post #186 of 251
Quote:
*** I can't believe that something as beautiful as making love to a your soulmate can be sinful and needs forgiveness, just because you are/were not married in Church....
By that do you mean the Catholic church?
'Cause we are evangelical and any marriage counts, whether it was a church wedding or secular.

The sex outside of marriage ban is (IMO) not because sex is bad (it's not!) but because covenental marriage is a good and protective thing. I don't believe God is a killjoy. And i don't believe sex is dirty. But I do believe that making a public covenant and committment with the support of the church and community is important and good for us.

Quote:
*** I can't believe that a kind, loving, and generous person that was not baptised will end up in some horrible place just because they have not accepted Christianity as their religion as I have.
Different churchs have different doctrines on baptism. We don't believe baptism is itself salvific, but a symbol of new life in Christ. We do, however, believe that Christ is The way to the Father, and that everyone will be given the opportunity to chose Him or reject him.
The other part of that is that none of us are perfect enough to enter into God's perfection on our own strength. Perfect Justice would ban all of us from heaven. Perfect Justice met Perfect Grace in Jesus' death and resurrection.

Quote:
*** If pride is one of the biggest sins, then how can it be that all priests wear fancy robes, and the higher the rank is, the fancier the attire?
Again to me it sounds like you are talking Catholicism. Maybe the occasional "prosperity gospel" preacher as well. Not all Christians do this or believe it's good.

Quote:
*** If homosexuality is such an awful sin, then how can there be so many kind and wonderful people who find happiness for themselves and others in this difficult life? Why in the world should they feel bad about who they are if God created them that way in the first place?
Homosexual sin is no greater than any other sin. Rather than seeing it as something God put into someone, we believe all of us are born with leanings towards certain sinful behaviors, because we are born into a fallen world.
And in the interest of honesty, I happen to be the possessor of proclivity towards one of the "deadly" sins--gluttony. It is a part of me, and I wish I could just flip a switch and turn it off, but I also know that it is not good for me to embrace it.
post #187 of 251
quick off topic history lesson. . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referencing. The Group? As I said, I don't really know much about the Great Schism. Care to elaborate?
There were five jurisdictions. Rome was the only one changing doctrine. and the only one who left the group. The other four remained cohesive and unchanged.


1st among equals - the Bishop of Rome (pope) didn't have any more authority to change doctrine ect than any other bishop. However he had the honorary position of being first in respect. but still no more authority over any other bishop. He didn't have a right to change doctrine, or make demands. everything was decid3d on by consensus of all the bishops. The church was run by a counsel. That place of first among equals has now been transfered to the bishop of Constantinople (yes i am aware it is now Istanbul but his title remains the same as it has always been). It is unknown if that position will go back to Rome if and when she wants to be a part of the church again.
post #188 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
quick off topic history lesson. . . .



There were five jurisdictions. Rome was the only one changing doctrine. and the only one who left the group. The other four remained cohesive and unchanged.


1st among equals - the Bishop of Rome (pope) didn't have any more authority to change doctrine ect than any other bishop. However he had the honorary position of being first in respect. but still no more authority over any other bishop. He didn't have a right to change doctrine, or make demands. everything was decid3d on by consensus of all the bishops. The church was run by a counsel. That place of first among equals has now been transfered to the bishop of Constantinople (yes i am aware it is now Istanbul but his title remains the same as it has always been). It is unknown if that position will go back to Rome if and when she wants to be a part of the church again.
So who was 'The Group?' And what was the doctrine that was changed?
post #189 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
I'm thinking that Stacy is referring to the institutional Church - not we, the members, the Body of Christ.
Nevertheless, I think they must be one and the same. An institution is simply a collection of people, right? Because no one thinks we're talking about a building, I'm sure. So, it sounds to me like Stacy's talking about the Majisterium maybe. I do think this is an extremely important point, though. The Majistirium, even as "protectors of the doctrine" (if you're going to go with that - that's another debate altogether) are only PART of the Church they are not THE Church.

Acts 2:42-47 is instructive, and, I think, a touchstone scripture for the Catholic Church:

2 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
post #190 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So who was 'The Group?' And what was the doctrine that was changed?
I know you didn't ask me, but there's a nice abstract of a lecture here that gives a nice little synopsis of the entire Schism - I enjoyed learning more about it. It looks like The Group might have been The Conciliators.
post #191 of 251
the group = the church. there were five jurisdictions (yes I should know them but I don't) one of which Rome . No higher or lower than the others. No bigger or smaller. no more athourity than the others. The other four jurisdictions remained practicing the same as they always have in the East and the Rome was excommunicated from the group (Thecnically Rome excommunicated everyone else but one guy didn't have the authority to over ride the other 4. but thechnically I guess you could say it was mutually agreed upon the Rome was going to seperate)

Doctrines added were the filoque, papal supremecy and shortly following were the immaculate conception and purgatory. Also the insistance on Latin was an issue as well as a lot of other smaller things. Then came the crusades and the sack of Constantinople. The schism was not a moment in time but long series of issues gradually widening the gap. geography, labnguageand culture played a big role in the split as well. The four Jurisdictions to the East were united by geography language and culture. This did not help.

Here is a time line that shows a series of events before and after the schism. http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/t...html#timechart
post #192 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So who was 'The Group?' And what was the doctrine that was changed?
If you go back to your own post, you spoke of "a group" that rejected Church dogma (where you equate The Church with the Church of Rome and "a group" with the Orthodox Churches). That is "the group" to which I refer. In fact, as lilyka stated, the only "group" rejecting established dogma WAS the Church of Rome. Not the Eastern Churches. The only heretical "group" was, again, the Church of Rome. If you were to actually look at the Christian Church prior to 1054, you would find a set of churches that very closely resemble the Orthodox Churches of today, NOT the Church of Rome. For many of us, the One Holy Catholic (I assume you realize that Catholic is Latin for Orthodox) and Apostolic Church is the set of Churches who did NOT change the Nicene Creed. Which is what the Church of Rome did. So, really, it is quite offensive when you insist that the Church of Rome is The Church and Orthodoxy is heretical.
post #193 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalkiwendy View Post
I know you didn't ask me, but there's a nice abstract of a lecture here that gives a nice little synopsis of the entire Schism - I enjoyed learning more about it. It looks like The Group might have been The Conciliators.
Wrong schism. We're talking about the one where the Eastern and Western Churches split. In the 11th century.
post #194 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriole View Post
Why does a kind, self-sacrificing, loving Christian deserves eternal paradise any more than a loving, self-sacrificing, kind Budhist? If the answer is "because they didn't go to church on Sunday", then it's not good enough of an answer to me. ANY good (and you can interprete "good" any way you see fit) person deserves a paradise, do they not?..
If you believe that the Bible is Spirit inspired and the word of God, what he has given us to live by then you will understand that he said "Do not worship false idols"

A Buddhist worships Buddha, an idol. Other religions also have false idols. If you don't believe God's word as whole and you choose to only take the parts of the Bible you like, than you will constantly question.
post #195 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriole View Post
I don't "read" the smilies, and I'm trying to show that my intentions are peaceful, that I don't mean to start an argument, just a discussion. I just don't understand how it can make sense to anyone in any other way. DP is a Catholic, and the best, kindest man I've ever known. However, I can't imagine that he's the only one like this, and that if there was another person like him out there that they wouldn't deserve "to be saved" just because they are not Catholic.

I also find that traditional Christianity takes rather ignorant stand on homosexsuality, and I'm not sure how certain things are not clear to church. Which part of "this is the way God chose to create me, this is who I am" is unclear? Can they help who they fall in love with? Do they think it would be "healthy" for their spirituality to fight their love for another human being? Do they define themselves as better people because they were born heterosexual? In my view of the world, a person's actions and what they bring to this world should matter infinetly more than whether they are in love with a man or a woman, and I believe God sees it that way too, and if he is truly the God of love, then he cannot bear to look at all the hate surrounding this issue, and be on the side of hate and intollerance.
The Lord wishes for noone to perish. Each of us has been adopted but God is not forceful. We have to open the door for him to come in. God created us flesh and blood and we do not serve a God who does not understand our hurts, passions and desires. Homosexuality, death, disease, etc. are all part of living in a broken world....just because it is happening and it is what someone desires doesn't make it right whether they are nice or not.

But this is not the only life we will live. He is preparing us for eternity.
post #196 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriole View Post
I guess what I'm trying to say, through the years, I've come to believe in a kinder God than the one you describe, because to me if a person is wonderful and thoughtful and kind, the God I believe in would never deny that person kindness and peace in return. The only reason to that would be pride (i.e. "yes, you have lead a good and kind life, but who cares, you didn't pray to ME, so there... off you go"), and the God I believe in does things out of love and wisdom, not out of pride.

I don't understand why there is so much question as to who God is or his son Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The thing is that you need to believe in all three to understand because Christ is what connects us to God...he intercedes for us because he understands our earthly life.

The Bible tells all of God that he wants us to know and what we need to know. If we knew anymore our little minds might pop.
post #197 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potty Diva View Post
and ya know that is all anyone can do. I in fact, could be wrong.

And I can't determine if you are going to hell anymore than I can gaurentee that I won't. It's really not my business, ya know?

I think it will all work itself out in the end. So to speak.
I know I'm not going to hell as long as I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour. I'll always be a sinner and I'll always be doing something wrong, nobody is ever just at fault for being a Buddhist and no other matter, we are humans for crying out loud so that is a moot argument. But Jesus will always be my Lord and that is what get's me through the gates. Whether God tells me "well done you ran the race and finished" or "look at what you could have had with me" will be the difference.
post #198 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB20005 View Post
The gnostic gospels sure have a very different Jesus inside of them, though. Some might even say that things He was credited in those books to have taught were "New Age" , and at the very least mirror eastern religious teachings. Have you read any of those gospels? Sure, I know the gnostic gospels were claimed heretical by the early Christians who later became the Catholics but I wonder if their version "won" simply because they had more resources, more powerful leaders?
The objection to the Gnostic gospels was not just what was written in them, but how they were written. The Gnostic sect believed they could communicate with the dead. Their gospels were written long after the alleged "authors" of them had died. Members of the religion served as mediums and "channelled" the messages of people like Mary Magdalene, Judas, and others, and wrote down their supposed messages. These were then presented as posthumous gospels.
post #199 of 251
wow. I never knew that.
post #200 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtiger View Post
Wrong schism. We're talking about the one where the Eastern and Western Churches split. In the 11th century.
Gotcha! Cool - nice history lesson going here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › As a Christian I have a difficult time understanding...