- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,291
- 246,830
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Are you some kind of radical?
Are you some kind of radical?
That's a leap. If you are being serious.
Before, when you were involved with this thread a few hours ago, would you have asked the same thing?
If not, then what has changed?
If so, then maybe this not be the right place for me after all.
I'll respect whatever it is you deem.
Why? Why does Christianity have to have supremacy? This is what is so hard for me to understand. Pocahontas's Grandmother Willow has as much faith.
It doesn't. That is definitely in the context of what I've been trying to say. I find that people read what they want things to say, instead of reading the words.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,291
- 246,830
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
D
Deleted member 16771
I dug out some notes to try to find some usage for you. Here's a passage from Orderic Vitalis' Ecclesiastical History, describing France (This is 12th century): [Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol. iv, books vii and viii, ed. and trans. by Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford, 1973)]
'His temporibus Gallia religiosis et eruditis presulibus florebat.' [p. 262]
Marjorie Chibnall's translation:
'At this time France was full of pious and learned bishops.' [p. 263]
Here Chibnall elects to translate 'religiosis' as 'pious' rather than 'religious' because that's the closer meaning - 'religio' and derived terms meant adherence to a set of rules rather than indicating the quality of belief or something else.
Your statements that 'Christianity is a faith not a religion' and 'this is universal consensus among Christians' I disagree with on a few grounds:
1) The concept of 'religion' as we know it didn't really exist before the modern era.
2) In any case, medieval Christians at least sometimes described what they were doing as 'our religion', to mean something like 'our form of piety'. They called each other 'religious' to mean 'professed in the faith', 'pious', strict to the commandments, &c.
3) Christianity is a very 'religiony' religion because it is expressly built around adherence to formal rules, and before the Reformation you needed the intercession of priests to even get into heaven. You can't get in while in a state of sin, which means that you're required to follow rules/do works.
'His temporibus Gallia religiosis et eruditis presulibus florebat.' [p. 262]
Marjorie Chibnall's translation:
'At this time France was full of pious and learned bishops.' [p. 263]
Here Chibnall elects to translate 'religiosis' as 'pious' rather than 'religious' because that's the closer meaning - 'religio' and derived terms meant adherence to a set of rules rather than indicating the quality of belief or something else.
Your statements that 'Christianity is a faith not a religion' and 'this is universal consensus among Christians' I disagree with on a few grounds:
1) The concept of 'religion' as we know it didn't really exist before the modern era.
2) In any case, medieval Christians at least sometimes described what they were doing as 'our religion', to mean something like 'our form of piety'. They called each other 'religious' to mean 'professed in the faith', 'pious', strict to the commandments, &c.
3) Christianity is a very 'religiony' religion because it is expressly built around adherence to formal rules, and before the Reformation you needed the intercession of priests to even get into heaven. You can't get in while in a state of sin, which means that you're required to follow rules/do works.
It's easy to get lost and confused in this forum because of all the subliminal humor, sarcasm, broad references...
Emphasis on error. But there are T types who truly believe that Christianity is supreme. Error or not, I hope to understand why they believe so.
And Love. OP is high, I believe.
I don't have the energy to care about this anymore. I really don't.
I think you've already made up your mind. Take care of your buddy Hostorious, He seems pretty miserable.
An act of faith? Work in good faith?
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,291
- 246,830
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
I have no idea where your mind went with this conversation man lol but my mind hasn't made up anything.
Are you really that terrified of the possibility that you might actually have a radical frame of mind or something?
D
Deleted member 16771
Here's a link to a search for the term 'religio' in the Patrologia Latina database. You'll find plenty of uses of the term 'Christian religion' (Christiania religio) (the contemporary meaning, of course). Your argument that 'Christians everywhere agree' that Christianity is not a religion just seems... mind boggling.
Oh, this might help, too.
Oh, this might help, too.
D
Deleted member 16771
Huh? I'm fine, dude. Hope you are, too.
D
Deleted member 16771
Oh, I'm sorry. I've finally caught up...
You're making a theological argument about predestination to claim that Christianity doesn't require works, because God has already decided, or its his gift alone, &c. For that to work, however, you've got to have us believe in God (and predestination) in the first place, because a Christian still needs to perform the ritual of baptism to earn baptismal grace.
You still have to participate in rituals. That seems pretty religiony to me.
RationalWiki said:
You're making a theological argument about predestination to claim that Christianity doesn't require works, because God has already decided, or its his gift alone, &c. For that to work, however, you've got to have us believe in God (and predestination) in the first place, because a Christian still needs to perform the ritual of baptism to earn baptismal grace.
You still have to participate in rituals. That seems pretty religiony to me.
"Some supporters of this position, including Bill O'Reilly, take this line of argument so far as to claim that since Christianity is not actually a religion, there is no U.S.-constitutional or moral obstacle to establishing it by law or having it promoted by government.[1][2]
The people making this claim never follow through as far as wanting to remove religious tax exemption for Christian churches."
How do I join!?
"This is the first error." Being truth, it was called an error. What was meant was not against Christianity, but praising it. He was speaking meat, not milk. He simply stated it is not a religion, even though many embrace that word innocently. The word "religion" has several meanings. "a particular system of faith and worship." This is not per se a system. I have little problem with this: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Had it said,
"the belief in and worship of God", would it be called a religion? He called it a faith. I totally agree.
"Works" will not get the ticket. I tithe, I help the poor, I drive the blind to church, I go to church Wednesday night, I go to visitation, I cut Mrs. Smith's lawn, I read the Bible every day, I never miss Sunday...these are works. They will not get the ticket. We are saved by the grace of God.
copied...
2 Corinthians 12:9 - And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Read More...)
Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
James 4:6 - But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Baptism is symbolic of dying in the flesh and being raised in the spirit unto Christ. I never, ever looked at it as a ritual. I wanted to be baptized at the age of 12 with much understanding of it. I don't recall doing it because I had to. I did it because I wanted to. Jesus came baptizing, was baptized, and I wanted to be part of that. I wanted to do as He did. It is required. Have a problem with telling other Christians you want to be a Christian?
A man saved by the grace of God will do things called works because he wants to, not as a requirement of Him.
"the belief in and worship of God", would it be called a religion? He called it a faith. I totally agree.
"Works" will not get the ticket. I tithe, I help the poor, I drive the blind to church, I go to church Wednesday night, I go to visitation, I cut Mrs. Smith's lawn, I read the Bible every day, I never miss Sunday...these are works. They will not get the ticket. We are saved by the grace of God.
copied...
2 Corinthians 12:9 - And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Read More...)
Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
James 4:6 - But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Baptism is symbolic of dying in the flesh and being raised in the spirit unto Christ. I never, ever looked at it as a ritual. I wanted to be baptized at the age of 12 with much understanding of it. I don't recall doing it because I had to. I did it because I wanted to. Jesus came baptizing, was baptized, and I wanted to be part of that. I wanted to do as He did. It is required. Have a problem with telling other Christians you want to be a Christian?
A man saved by the grace of God will do things called works because he wants to, not as a requirement of Him.
Christ cannot accept other Gods. Thou shalt have no other Gods before thee. Would you have me change my wishes for you? I should hope not. Who are you to not accept my blood for your life? " Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
I loved the movie, "Oh, God." God and Satan was played by the same man. God said about Satan, something like, "He always wanted to be like Me." So true and such a great metaphor they used.
If I went to the Jews and said I wanted them to make me a Prophet of God, and they said no?...... Why not start my own following and get even with them? Should his followers be accepted? Anger. Frustration. I've been there, before I knew what God's plan for me is.
Once again, it is being spoken about as a must. Once you have felt the presence and power of God, it becomes something you want and must have. Most people over the age of thirty have already made their mind up. Most.
This discussion will always be above me. God is too magnanimous to be understood. For all the monotheism in the world, surely God knows better than to compete with "other" gods. Perhaps what is being pertained to here is not merely "gods" as in that of many names but "gods" as in values that are not within the definition of love? Christianity confuses me because the path all too often seems singular. Interpretations of the Bible are presumed absolute when in fact it is volatile but I don't like to think of this volatility because then knowledge too is volatile and it shakes the foundations of my existence. I dislike absolutes which is why I hope to anchor my understanding of the world on fluidity. Christianity is too rigorous that it leaves a lot of room for excessive categorization. I guess I really find it hard to understand how some who are experts on Christianity choose this absolute understanding of it.
When a person has already made their mind up on something else they want, it probably would seem difficult and exacting to that person. I think this is normal. Back then, people saw the blind see, the dead raised, the lepers cleansed. They saw the stoning of a poor harlot stopped. They saw him teaching at age 12. They saw his absence in the tomb. They heard things they had never considered. They heard him speak top the Pharisees and church leaders. It was much easier for them to believe. It can be difficult for some nowadays. It takes faith, like a child jumping from a diving board and being caught. It is not hard for me to understand, for I accept it. It then becomes a very large part of you. I see it as simplicity, and you see its being volatile. I searched for the understanding of it for three years, so God placed a man in my path that would help with some of it, which he did. If we are closed to what we read or hear, rather than being open to it? We have our rewards. Must go to work.
Thank you for taking your time @just me 
I accept Christ. While history is hardly absolute either because a number of points remain contentious, in general, I accept Christ. I accept that He is real and I recognize that He is special. He was many things and He exhibited wisdom beyond His time. I accept His teachings, too but I think too little of myself to believe that I understand all of it in its entirety. I think this will forever be an ongoing work even for priests and pastors or even theologists. Notice my reverence for Him as I write the pronouns with a capital H. after all, Christianity dictates He is God and He is the Holy Spirit.
Kidding aside, what I view as volatile are the interpretations of His teachings. I am not certain that any one of us are able to understand His teachings in its entirety. Isn't that what makes Him the alpha and the omega because He is beyond our grasp? Rather it appears to me that we understand His teachings as we should, depending on circumstances we are battling with. In that is where volatility lies because if we are not seeing His teachings in entirety, are we not vulnerable to using and interpreting His teachings for our own gain? Isn't this scarily volatile? It is in this vein that I simultaneously recognize but second guess dogma. Tithes, for example, are dogmatic to me. I understand that it is a religious act but I second guess whether such faithfulness is rightfully placed. To be honest, I have stopped going to mass because while the scripture intrigues me, the homily most often annoys me. Priests are human as they are and their ego shines through their interpretations of God's word, so to speak. It is the same ego that is bound to appeal to us as we interpret scripture.
In any case, I am not without experiences of the "Divine". I know love. I know that warmth. I know that peace. I have at least encountered them enough to convince me that there is more to us than the chemical composition in our bodies. The ethereal, while contentious, is potentially out there. If anything, I believe that it exists. This is my act of faith. Nonetheless, to me it doesn't place religion nor dogma at par with these experiences of divinity. In a sense, it is hard for me to accept the supremacy of Christianity because there is equal divinity in "the colors of the wind". I refuse to believe that pagans are not engulfed within God's love if they are simply unable of recognizing dogma. Moana of Motunui is a fairly reasonable girl. Why should she be robbed of heaven when dogma hasn't even existed in her time?
While I see the relevance of monotheism, I cannot help but interpret monotheism as simply our oneness as beings. If anything, I wonder if God really should be perceived as an other, or if God and the Holy Spirit is after all, all of us living.
I was intrigued by @Deleted member 16771' mentioned work on how knowledge is spread. I'm not sure which thread I read it on, but I wondered if that interesting spread of knowledge could prove us as one network. Somehow, doesn't it increase the probability of the theory that perhaps maybe we are all made of one and the same God?
Edit: it is because of this theory that I value connection and communication because I somewhat believe that we strengthen God via our relationships. This is also the reason why I find it hard to be on the wagon for Divorce because I take marriage very seriously. To me, marriage is close to the faith in God. It is an embodiment of my Faith and my values for human connection. Should it fail, it signifies failure of a God I am seeking. I know that this is irrational and subject to fault because no human nor marriage is perfect which is how I encounter my existential crises...
I accept Christ. While history is hardly absolute either because a number of points remain contentious, in general, I accept Christ. I accept that He is real and I recognize that He is special. He was many things and He exhibited wisdom beyond His time. I accept His teachings, too but I think too little of myself to believe that I understand all of it in its entirety. I think this will forever be an ongoing work even for priests and pastors or even theologists. Notice my reverence for Him as I write the pronouns with a capital H.
after all, Christianity dictates He is God and He is the Holy Spirit.Kidding aside, what I view as volatile are the interpretations of His teachings. I am not certain that any one of us are able to understand His teachings in its entirety. Isn't that what makes Him the alpha and the omega because He is beyond our grasp? Rather it appears to me that we understand His teachings as we should, depending on circumstances we are battling with. In that is where volatility lies because if we are not seeing His teachings in entirety, are we not vulnerable to using and interpreting His teachings for our own gain? Isn't this scarily volatile? It is in this vein that I simultaneously recognize but second guess dogma. Tithes, for example, are dogmatic to me. I understand that it is a religious act but I second guess whether such faithfulness is rightfully placed. To be honest, I have stopped going to mass because while the scripture intrigues me, the homily most often annoys me. Priests are human as they are and their ego shines through their interpretations of God's word, so to speak. It is the same ego that is bound to appeal to us as we interpret scripture.
In any case, I am not without experiences of the "Divine". I know love. I know that warmth. I know that peace. I have at least encountered them enough to convince me that there is more to us than the chemical composition in our bodies. The ethereal, while contentious, is potentially out there. If anything, I believe that it exists. This is my act of faith. Nonetheless, to me it doesn't place religion nor dogma at par with these experiences of divinity. In a sense, it is hard for me to accept the supremacy of Christianity because there is equal divinity in "the colors of the wind". I refuse to believe that pagans are not engulfed within God's love if they are simply unable of recognizing dogma. Moana of Motunui is a fairly reasonable girl. Why should she be robbed of heaven when dogma hasn't even existed in her time?
While I see the relevance of monotheism, I cannot help but interpret monotheism as simply our oneness as beings. If anything, I wonder if God really should be perceived as an other, or if God and the Holy Spirit is after all, all of us living.
I was intrigued by @Deleted member 16771' mentioned work on how knowledge is spread. I'm not sure which thread I read it on, but I wondered if that interesting spread of knowledge could prove us as one network. Somehow, doesn't it increase the probability of the theory that perhaps maybe we are all made of one and the same God?
Edit: it is because of this theory that I value connection and communication because I somewhat believe that we strengthen God via our relationships. This is also the reason why I find it hard to be on the wagon for Divorce because I take marriage very seriously. To me, marriage is close to the faith in God. It is an embodiment of my Faith and my values for human connection. Should it fail, it signifies failure of a God I am seeking. I know that this is irrational and subject to fault because no human nor marriage is perfect which is how I encounter my existential crises...