By all means feel free to post it, you are right that I won't believe it, but different perspectives are refreshing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Printable View
By all means feel free to post it, you are right that I won't believe it, but different perspectives are refreshing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I agree with the Don about man having a negative impact on Christianity. If I were a believer in the Christian God, I would recognise that Christianity is inseparable from the church, meaning that Christianity was organised from the onset. If I was a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that Jesus Christ was his only begotten in the flesh, I would believe the Bible being a true record of how God told his people to live and worship.
I would recognise that Jesus brought a new model for worship that included an organised church. I would recognise that God used spokes persons or prophet to reveal His will. And there you have it; a hierarchy or organisation with God on top directing his people calling an elected few to do his will and conduct His kingdom on earth. An organisation that reaches into the heavens with angels and other heavenly beings doing the Lord’s will.
At the onset a perfect organisation that could give us intelligence from the most intelligent being in cosmos, the one that created it.
There would be no need for Science, because God could tell us how things are. If we wondered about black holes and travelling through space in a blink of an eye, He could tell us, because he governs those laws.
I would recognise man killing the spokesmen of God. That man corrupted this organisation bringing in the ideas of men; power-hungry and evil men taking advantage of the faith of the pious to gain pleasures of the flesh and the mind. Other men, maybe not evil, using the church to gain a nation. I would recognise that not all men think that following the simple steps outlined by His prophets are enough, that the grace of God might not be sufficient to gain that which is promised in the hereafter. That faith without actions are dead. To show God their worthiness, they must do something more, walk the extra mile. They must atone like their saviour did for any sin they might have committed and thereby putting aside the very core of their religion. They become the extra believer, the faith wavering extr(a)emist. I would recognise that man closed the heavens by murdering the doors and are left stumbling in the dark with a closed canon containing nothing but a story of how it used to be. I would recognise that man tries to figure out the nature of God and his creation using nothing but logic and argument.
But I am not a believer and what should I think of all this?
I know three faiths that puts Abraham as a forefather, have a common culprit called Gabriel. Who is this person that engulfed the world in so much grief and strife? Why promise to the Jews that the Messiah would crush the King that would destroy the holy people and then give glad tidings to the priest of Abia of a son to be borne and then strike him dumb, then give a young maiden the news that she will be the mother of a God, and later spend 23 years with a merchant whispering revelations that the merchant’s companions wrote down.
My memory of world history might be a bit rusty, but didn't Jesus not formally organize Christianity? Isn't it his disciples who did it after his death so in a sense, Christianity would be a religion created by man. Its principles may be based off of (supposedly) divine principles, but Jesus was considered a Jew until his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Thus, in a sense, Man can't have a negative impact on Christianity if it was first created by man
I think the jury is out. Jesus did ordain a church. He speaks of it several times as his bride. When he changed Simon's name, it was to Peter (Aramaic for 'rock') to be the rock upon which he would build the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by TevashSzat
That being said, even reading the Acts of the Apostles, it's clear that an organized practice, even among the disciples themselves, didn't happen until the Holy Spirit descended upon them when they congregated in the upper room, after Jesus had ascended. So whether "the Church" Jesus spoke of has ever existed upon this earth remains debatable. I would say no, but much as a parabola approaches an asymptote, we can approach the goal.
Now, when you add in the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit doesn't act alone, but is one in nature with Jesus Christ, :dizzy2:
The point I was trying to make is that regardless of whether Jesus instituted the Church directly or indirectly, the moment he left it alone, it was corrupt, because it was comprised of men, thoroughly corrupt beings who cannot maintain the perfection Jesus instituted. But that's okay. It's all part of God's plan, and if nothing else, the Bible is meant as an extended volume of anecdotal evidence of how God can and does use man, even in his weakened and imperfect state, to bring about His Will.
Think about it. The most reviled human being who ever lived, the betrayer of the savior, the evil one, Judas Iscariot, did God's will in doing what he did. Almost like God knows a few things we don't. :juggle2:
That, good sir, will get you a loud and hearty "AMEN!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
It generally comes down to the actions of the Holy Spirit, which means it's a matter of feeling, rather than sense perception in the traditional sense. As such, it's difficult if not impossible to test from with scientific methodology, and probably impossible to respect from a solely scientific perspective. It's not necessarily easy to manage and process even for a believer, with the difficulty of sorting spiritual communication from personal emotion and whatnot (and for a non-believer, it's easy to conclude there's no need for such distinction and that it's all just personal emotion, but some misinterpreted). There's a reason it's faith instead of knowledge, and a parallel reason that religious fanaticism (like pretty much all fanaticism) is very dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
But in spite of the haziness, the indefinite nature of such a source, these feelings exist, and cause me and others to trust in the existence and concern of a benevolent deity.
As to what to do about them on a social level, that brings in whole different questions. I think religious fervor should be kept to the metaphysical realm in its application as it is with its source. Using religion to argue against evolution, genetic research, or a round earth is the height of silliness. Using it to argue for humane treatment of others and the pursuit of a happy life is much more compatible with its nature.
Ajax