Something small and round

[Andres]

My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.

That's something that bothers me as well.

Aren't christians supposed to be humble before God?

Isn't it incredibly non-humble, not to say "arrogant", to claim to have the truth about what God said?

Is it humble to tell other people what Gods' message is and how they should interprete it?

That's not very humble, is it?

If there is a God, then who am I to know, understand and interprete His message? I'm just a humble human being.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's something that bothers me as well.

Aren't christians supposed to be humble before God?

Isn't it incredibly non-humble, not to say "arrogant", to claim to have the truth about what God said?

Is it humble to tell other people what Gods' message is and how they should interprete it?

That's not very humble, is it?

If there is a God, then who am I to know, understand and interprete His message? I'm just a humble human being.

I never really understood this argument. When a Christian claims to know 'the truth', it is not because they discovered it of their own merit. It's not because we see ourselves as spiritually more pure, or more moral, or more clever than anyone else. Instead, it's because of the regeneration which Christ worked in us. Everything is attributed to God, and nothing to ourselves.

[Andres]

I never really understood this argument. When a Christian claims to know 'the truth', it is not because they discovered it of their own merit. It's not because we see ourselves as spiritually more pure, or more moral, or more clever than anyone else. Instead, it's because of the regeneration which Christ worked in us. Everything is attributed to God, and nothing to ourselves.

How many "different types" of Christians are there?

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehova, etc, etc.

All of them attribute their truth to God and say that the other "truths" are mistaken.

With what authority does one type of Christians say that their version is the right one and the others are mistaken?

How humble is it to claim that you are the one who interpretes Gods' word right and the others are mistaken. If you do so, then you are claiming to know what God meant. That's not humble, that's arrogant. Only God knows what he meant, not humans. Sure, you can be convinced that you are right, but you have no right to tell others they are mistaken.

That's also why I don't understand the intolerance towards other religions.

After all, the only one who truly knows Gods' message is God himself, not humans who have to rely on text written by humans and interpretations given by humans. For all we, humble humans know, text and words are probably not sufficient to get Gods' message across.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Christianity continues judaism, does it not? If it is as pure as you claim it to be; it has a really odd starting point.

In the OT, God is shown to have given the whole ceremonial law to the Israelites because of their rebellion against him with the golden calf etc. That is why Paul etc describe the law as a curse. In other parts of the NT (most notably Hebrews 7-11), the symbolic significance of all these ceremonial elements are shown to have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ, and they were always designed to point the Jewish people towards him. In other words, ceremonial laws are an abberation from the norm, which is a more direct relationship with God.

BTW, I regard Judaism as part of that Covenant with God which all Christians are a part of, and so in this respect I'm actually pretty tolerant *shock*, in that I regard Jews as being 'saved' as we say (being saved in the same way as all the OT saints were). It is just that God has his own special covenant with ethnic Israel.

If all religions but Christianity are tending towards being more ritual, as you claim it, wouldn't then Christianity contradict with human theistic tendencies?

Also, how does human inclination justify a choice anyway; if humans are flawed? You mentioned the word 'fornication'; and since this is a human inclination; shouldn't then "the right religion" include this rather than outlaw it?

I said our tendency to believe in God is natural, but not all our practices are. This is because although we believe in God, we can't accept that it is our own sin that seperates us from him, and so we come up with our own gods and build idols etc in place of the real one. In this sense, Christianity is the natural form of human theistic tendencies, and all organised religion is a diversion from that.

Of course, human inclination is not what makes Christianity right. However, our belief in God is something natural, in that the first humans would have held to it. On the other hand, our sin and fornication etc was something that came later leading to the fall of mankind etc. Hence why we are right to believe in God, but wrong in the way so many people corrupt these beliefs.

How many "different types" of Christians are there?

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehova, etc, etc.

All of them attribute their truth to God and say that the other "truths" are mistaken.

With what authority does one type of Christians say that their version is the right one and the others are mistaken?

Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches, and many denominations of Protestantism are simply not purely Christian churches. Christian worship and beliefs changed dramatically with the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and during this period pagan elements merged with the Christian aspects to form a whole new belief system. The Protestant Reformation was largely about returning to the true Christian roots and the belief system of the New Testament. Of course, they extent to which this was achieved varies from denomination to denomination, but generally speaking, Protestant beliefs tend to be closer to the purely Christian originals.

A second reason why these churches diverge is that being large institutionalised churches, they had to have a belief system that could appeal to their followers, whether or not they are actually Christians in that they have been made regenerate through Christ. And so we get all these doctrines that are designed to appeal to the hearts of men, even if they clearly contradict what the early Christians believed. One example is the Orthodox Churches... in order to keep their traditional understanding of our free will, they deny that Christ died for anyone's sins!

As for the authority to say what is right... all I know is what God has taught me. I can't take the credit for it and so I have nothing to boast about, but at the same time I trust in the Lord to guide me. If you think this sort of confidence is un-Christian, just look at the NT. Even atheists seem to like Jesus as a guy, but he was really stubborn when it came to his belief system. As for more concrete proof of why the beliefs I hold to should be seen as correct (at least regarding Christian in-fighting), 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ' by John Owen has never been refuted some four centuries aften it was written.

How humble is it to claim that you are the one who interpretes Gods' word right and the others are mistaken. If you do so, then you are claiming to know what God meant. That's not humble, that's arrogant. Only God knows what he meant, not humans. Sure, you can be convinced that you are right, but you have no right to tell others they are mistaken.

That's also why I don't understand the intolerance towards other religions.

After all, the only one who truly knows Gods' message is God himself, not humans who have to rely on text written by humans and interpretations given by humans. For all we, humble humans know, text and words are probably not sufficient to get Gods' message across.

It is not a case of me interpreting anything, it is about God telling me what I need to know. You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

And so I should be humble of myself, but confident in what I believe, knowing it came from God.

[rvg]

...You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

Nah. All you have are words from other humans. Nothing more. The luthers and the calvins with all their nonsensical perversions of Christianity, that's just about all that your view contains. So, it didn't come from God, it came from a calvinist minister, who in tun got them from his predecessor, etc, etc. It's just a regurgitation of centuries old nonsense that gets passed around as a brand new revelation from God.

[Viking]

I said our tendency to believe in God is natural, but not all our practices are. This is because although we believe in God, we can't accept that it is our own sin that seperates us from him, and so we come up with our own gods and build idols etc in place of the real one. In this sense, Christianity is the natural form of human theistic tendencies, and all organised religion is a diversion from that.

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nah. All you have are words from other humans. Nothing more. The luthers and the calvins with all their nonsensical perversions of Christianity, that's just about all that your view contains. So, it didn't come from God, it came from a calvinist minister, who in tun got them from his predecessor, etc, etc. It's just a regurgitation of centuries old nonsense that gets passed around as a brand new revelation from God.

I thought you were a practicing Catholic? Do you not believe in regeneration through Christ etc?

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome?

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

You are right, I am not trying to make a solid argument here. It's more a case of trying to find some abstract ideas which we can generally agree upon or try to make some sense of, to use as a framework for the other stuff we were discussing.

There's probably a lot of truth in your above example as well. I guess to discuss such a topic as the origins and development of faith and institutionalised religion would require a big discussion, and it would take ages to really make a serious system out of it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*points and laffs at the silly paddies*

Haha! Superstitious folk who see apparitions of Mary in caves and build shrines around it that serve as a place of pilgrimage for ages thereafter!

Only in Ireland! Cutesy silly folk and...

...hang on.



All apparitions start this way. Then if enough people belive it for a lengthy enough period of time, it is adopted by those supreme opportunists, the Catholic clergy. From winter solistice to virgin births, from apparitions to human sacrifice for sin, the entire doctrine of Catholicism originated outside of the Catholic hierchy.

One could say Catholicism is the unifier. That it is the institution that channels superstition into a managable social product, to unife the populace. Like languages or socially accepted behaviour, so in religious matters too there has to be a common standard if a society is to function as a whole.

Arguably, this has become less important in modern societies, where the disappearance of this necessity led to increasing secularism. Except in the staunchly individual US, where the church functions as social glue.

[rvg]

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome?

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

[Andres]

It is not a case of me interpreting anything, it is about God telling me what I need to know. You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Augustine said something about this, possinbly in "The City of God", roughly translated as:

It should not be said that God is ineffable, because then something is said [about God] so that it is better not to say He is ineffable, however something must be said and so this contradiction should be passed over in silence.

A Christian has not only a right, but a responsibility, to argue his or her beliefs, but at the same time to be open to alternative arguements. You are correct that to presume to know the truth is arrogant. However, to know part of the truth and to not present it to your brothers and sisters is much, much, worse because it is selfish.