Having A Humble Opinion Of Self

[the caracal kid]

you may be, which is good. I didn't mean to imply you were or were not. I meant that it seems the majority of "christians" don't really know the history of their own religion. I mentioned RC since sassy already went down that path, and since RC is the foundation from which all the organized sects branched off (directly or indirectly).

(I view the two councils i mentioned as the "key" ones)

to the topic of following the instructions:

Any sect can form by reforming previous or creating new instructions, so why can't somebody call themselves "christian" without following rules? As an early doomsday cult (first generations) there were not rules. They didn't even write anything down for the first couple hundred years thinking "the end was near".

 

[sanctus]

you may be, which is good. I didn't mean to imply you were or were not. I meant that it seems the majority of "christians" don't really know the history of their own religion. I mentioned RC since sassy already went down that path, and since RC is the foundation from which all the organized sects branched off (directly or indirectly).

(I view the two councils i mentioned as the "key" ones)

to the topic of following the instructions:

Any sect can form by reforming previous or creating new instructions, so why can't somebody call themselves "christian" without following rules? As an early doomsday cult (first generations) there were not rules. They didn't even write anything down for the first couple hundred years thinking "the end was near".

You could make that distinction of any group of people. It is too broad and general really. Most Canadians do not know the history of their own country, etc.etc.

To your other point, reforms in the RC Church are always in accordance with the traditions of the Church. In other words, nothing new is created. Refined, somewhat modified, but always consistent with the traditions of the faith. the theology and moral code of the Church has never changed. In other words, what is believed, for example, about the Blessed Mother is the same as was believed three centuries, or a thousand years ago.

And to the point again, no it does not work. The point was, in order to belong to something, it stands to reason you do because you believe it to be good and thus are attempting to follow its rules of thought and conduct. Not doing so is very much like, for example, signing up to bowl on a bowling league and never turning up for the games. You can hardly be considered a member of a team you are not taking part in.

Never mind the Catholic faith, pick any faith or group you want, and the logic is the same. If i tell you I am Muslim, it should suggest that is the religious tradition I follow. If I tell you I am a pagan, than it would, or should, be assumed I have so identified myself in such a fashion because I follow its belief system..See what i mean?

 

[the caracal kid]

I see what you mean, and I agree with you. That is why I say the keystone of christianity is that "jesus rose from the dead" (connected to for sins, etc). Believing that is enough to fit under the umbrella "christianity". The remaining distinctions determine the sect.

Actually, blessed mother is something stolen from earlier beliefs to aid in conversion once christianity was the state religion. (One of the many gods created to paganize the original "teachings", which is why christianity (past the first generations) is in essence more pagan than abrahamic).

If you want to get right into "the doctorine" you need to discuss that much of the translations that became the bible were misinterpretations of jewish scripture (caused by said councils not knowing the language).

That is for another topic though.

I would like to get back to your humbleness questions. As I noted, your quote refers to "being beneath" which is very much present in the christian teachings. It goes part and parcel with the concept of a separation between the individual and, in the christian case, the "God". Do you see this?

 

[fuzzylogix]

I listen to mass for shut-ins on Sundays and the Sermons I endure make me mad, not because I'm evil or a sinner but because of the appalling things that are said by the person doing the preaching. He says things like "If you don't pray and read the bible everyday you aren't a "Real Christian" but a Christian wanna be. Women who work outside of the home are failures as a mother because all she's doing is earning money for game boys (never mind food and medications and education the list is endless). A woman's role is in the home to be subserviant to the husband but she is also his equal (I've throw a can of peas at the radio a few times)" Quite frankly this doesn't sound very Christian to me, if fact I'd say it's another male pontificating his dream of what a true Christian family is i.e. pregnant and bare foot in the kitchen whilst pandering to his every need. It offends me, not all of us who believe in God need to preach or attend Church to me a "Good Christian" is someone who strives to help spread love and kindness by deed or action.

Damn,
Sassie, your religion sounds as restrictive and damaging to women as that awful one you keep ranting on about...what was it--oh yes, Islam.

 

[sanctus]

I see what you mean, and I agree with you. That is why I say the keystone of christianity is that "jesus rose from the dead" (connected to for sins, etc). Believing that is enough to fit under the umbrella "christianity". The remaining distinctions determine the sect.?

That is indeed the beginning. For, if that is not believed, than all the rest is false.

 

[sanctus]

Actually, blessed mother is something stolen from earlier beliefs to aid in conversion once christianity was the state religion. (One of the many gods created to paganize the original "teachings", which is why christianity (past the first generations) is in essence more pagan than abrahamic).
?

Not quite. The role Mary played was immediate and steady from the moment of our Lord's dying on the cross. It was on the Cross that Jesus gave His mother over to the Church. That, of course, is a whole topic unto itself, for many people outside the Church, namely the Protestant sects, deny this core doctrine of Mary as Mother of the Church.

 

[sanctus]

I would like to get back to your humbleness questions. As I noted, your quote refers to "being beneath" which is very much present in the christian teachings. It goes part and parcel with the concept of a separation between the individual and, in the christian case, the "God". Do you see this?

No. What I see is the role defined for us under God. I see our connection to god as both creator and redeemer. However, we cannot assume to be equal to God.In all relationships there are distinctions and roles. The best example I can think of to illustrate what I am saying is the family. The parents are loved by the children, but the children know that it is the parents who are in charge. It is not servitude, but degrees of relationship. That to me is the same with God. He is, as is popular in our mythology, the Father-God.

Further, it seems to me that one of our issues as people is our inability to accept our limitations. We are centred only on self in so many ways. Thus, our arrogance makes us believe we are equal to God.

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus

I've been up all night watching the election results so my head is fragged more than usual. If we are allowed a Q&A here - and you seem a safe one to ask - I want to question you on a matter of historical
Christian teaching..... as it concerns me from a woman's point of view.

Why was the historical record written to include a "virgin" birth? What was the point? It demeans both
the female from one of the most beautiful roles she is to play if she so chooses, and demotes the father
Joseph to a lackey. In reality if a wife came to her husband revealing she is with child - created by an angel..... well... it doesn't compute.... in fact I find it a sad denial of humanity and the necessary
survival of our species.... procreation. Jesus was of human form was he not? I mean if the stories are based in fact.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy.

Seems to me that the more you know and the better you understand, the less likely you are to believe there's a god behind it all.

Truly to know and despise self is the best and most perfect counsel.

That's about the dumbest counsel I've heard in a long time. We should thus have no self esteem, no pride in ourselves and our achievements? I've known people like that; they're not nice to be around, and they tend to be pretty pathetic, when they're not just self-destructive.

That's the kind of muddle-headed thinking that notions like worship and faith can lead you into. No thanks. Irrationality is not something to strive for.

 

[the caracal kid]

Not quite. The role Mary played was immediate and steady from the moment of our Lord's dying on the cross. It was on the Cross that Jesus gave His mother over to the Church. That, of course, is a whole topic unto itself, for many people outside the Church, namely the Protestant sects, deny this core doctrine of Mary as Mother of the Church.

And when did this doctorine come to be, and by whom?

The point being it was created by the church hundreds of years "after the fact" (be it fictional or factual).

No. What I see is the role defined for us under God. I see our connection to god as both creator and redeemer. However, we cannot assume to be equal to God.In all relationships there are distinctions and roles. The best example I can think of to illustrate what I am saying is the family. The parents are loved by the children, but the children know that it is the parents who are in charge. It is not servitude, but degrees of relationship. That to me is the same with God. He is, as is popular in our mythology, the Father-God.

Further, it seems to me that one of our issues as people is our inability to accept our limitations. We are centred only on self in so many ways. Thus, our arrogance makes us believe we are equal to God.

This is exactly the separation principle I was speaking of. It is not arrogant to see yourself for what you are, to understand the interconnectedness of life, etc. It is limiting to strip away a large portion of yourself and hand it over to a "god".

Curiosity:
If you are curious about the virgin birth in christianity, it was a concept borrowed/stolen from earlier beliefs such as Zorastrism that had a "virgin birth".
The writers/editors of the new testament basically changed the names and places in older mythologies in creating their own mythology (it was to aid in conversion of the masses to the new state religion).

 

[sanctus]

Why was the historical record written to include a "virgin" birth? What was the point? It demeans boththe female from one of the most beautiful roles she is to play if she so chooses, and demotes the father
Joseph to a lackey. In reality if a wife came to her husband revealing she is with child - created by an angel..... well... it doesn't compute.... in fact I find it a sad denial of humanity and the necessary
survival of our species.... procreation. Jesus was of human form was he not? I mean if the stories are based in fact.

The doctrine of the virginal conception and birth of Christ is found in the Nicene Creed as well as in the oldest forms of the Apostles' Creed. It has always been the constant and uniform tradition of the Church, and is taught explicitly by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, Aristides and St. Ignatius. It is formulated in the Roman Catechism, in some Protestant Confessions and apparently in the Catechism of the Socinians, which considers the birth of Christ miraculous without explicitly declaring the virginity of Mary. The two Evangelists of Christ's virginal conception are St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the accounts of both writers, an angel announces the heavenly origin of the Infant even before He is conceived: "Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:20); "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy Which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). St Luke twice repeats that Mary was a virgin at the time of the Annunciation, and consequently at the time of the Incarnation; the Angel Gabriel was sent "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the Virgin's name was Mary" (Luke 1:27).

I do not consider it demeaning at all to women. In fact, in choosing a woman to bear the Christ, God bestows great honour to the woman. Don't forget that Jesus is believed to have held two natures-both human and Divine.

 

[sanctus]

And when did this doctorine come to be, and by whom?

The point being it was created by the church hundreds of years "after the fact" (be it fictional or factual).

The doctrine was present in Church teachings almost from the beginning of the life of the Church. It forms part of the Old and New Testament stoires of the virginal birth. It was not a doctrine created "hundreds of years later" since from the beginning it already was part of the conciousness of the Apostles and those who followed directly after the Apostles.

 

[sanctus]

This is exactly the separation principle I was speaking of. It is not arrogant to see yourself for what you are, to understand the interconnectedness of life, etc. It is limiting to strip away a large portion of yourself and hand it over to a "god".
.

Not at all! For us as Christians, we understand and appreciate the connection we hold to all things created by God. We are present as equal creation of an omnipotent God who also offers us the unique gift of fellowship with Him. This is our connection, our interconnectedness if you will.

 

[the caracal kid]

The doctrine was present in Church teachings almost from the beginning of the life of the Church. It forms part of the Old and New Testament stoires of the virginal birth. It was not a doctrine created "hundreds of years later" since from the beginning it already was part of the conciousness of the Apostles and those who followed directly after the Apostles.

think about at what point the stories were first written down (opposed to oral tradition)?

It was a few hundred years after the fact! The original followers of the doomsday cult thought the world was going to end in their lifetime, so they saw no need to write things down.

Then, once the church began to be formalized, through the councils, the texts were heavily edited and selected.

You can't use the christianized version of the torah, which formed the old testament for a basis for support. You are using the old "use the bible to verify the bible" routine, which is not valid.

 

[MikeyDB]

Sanctus

I know how you feel. I'm an atheist and when I initiate a discussion from that position...well all hell can break loose..

You're right of course, people can read or not read your contribution but is there any merit in attempting to understand or appreciate why one feels the necessity to post this kind of conviction?

 

[Curiosity]

MikeyDB

On a forum where people choose to write their opinions and thoughts - does there have to me "approved merit" regarding what a person chooses to write?

If a person believes in Christianity - why should he or she not be allowed to write about it. If one other person is benefiting (or not), what difference does it make to the membership as it is not obscene nor offensive.

I had no idea people were going to go so ballistic over a simple few posts of one man's belief.

 

[kendall]

if everyone like you and just ask from god, we're still living on trees.

 

[sanctus]

if everyone like you and just ask from god, we're still living on trees.

uhmmm, ok...I have never lived in a tree-have you?

 

[sanctus]

MikeyDB

On a forum where people choose to write their opinions and thoughts - does there have to me "approved merit" regarding what a person chooses to write?

If a person believes in Christianity - why should he or she not be allowed to write about it. If one other person is benefiting (or not), what difference does it make to the membership as it is not obscene nor offensive.

I had no idea people were going to go so ballistic over a simple few posts of one man's belief.

Neither did I. And in particular since I posted this article in what I thought was the appropriate section of this forum, "Christian Discussion". I still wonder, under the heading of this section, what else was one to post "A History of Scotland"?

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus

I know how you feel. I'm an atheist and when I initiate a discussion from that position...well all hell can break loose..

You're right of course, people can read or not read your contribution but is there any merit in attempting to understand or appreciate why one feels the necessity to post this kind of conviction?

Why not? I'm not ashamed of my beliefs and, again(why do I have to keep reminding people of this, this section is called CHRISTIAN Discussion.