My Argument About "the Church"

[BluePhantom]

It just occurred to me that one reason Jesus taught in parables so much of the time is because he foresaw the possibility of his teachings becoming corrupted by power. I mean, he saw it in the Jewish authorities right there in Judea. So by putting it all in riddles that worldly men would be intrinsically unable to understand, he insured that it would be preserved and passed along as part of Sacred Writ even though it went one-eighty degrees against what the Church taught in many cases (the authorities being unable to tell that it does). Think of the parabolic encryption as similar to the protective coating on a virus that lets it evade the body's initial defenses.

An interesting idea. I never thought of it that way. I always looked at the parables as a way to teach a very elevated principle in a way that a layman could understand. Of course Jesus is a bit of a historical problem himself isn't he? What I mean is that a Taoist looks at the Tao Te Ching and it was written by Lao-Tzu (at least presumably) so for a Taoist the doctrine comes right from the leader's mouth (or pen....whatever). Jewish theology says that Moses wrote the Torah so it came directly from him. You know, etc, etc....but with Jesus we have an interesting thing. We have nothing that came directly from Jesus. We have accounts from the disciples but at best that means we have "Matthew says this is what Jesus said". In the case of Paul, which is really the dominant author of modern Christianity, we have at best "this is what Jesus meant according to what I have heard from others who have told me what Jesus said".

When we take a step back and look at it historically and credentially...we have a real big problem here because whatever Jesus said is going to be filtered through the perceptions and the biases and the capacity for understanding of the second hand, third hand source, etc.

2 Peter chapter 3 for example issues a pretty stern warning that the writings of Paul should be largely ignored....yet Paul is the basis for modern Christian thought. Well who should we believe? Paul who never met Jesus or Peter who walked with Jesus for years? I can only say who I believe but i concede arguments can be made either way.

This is another example of why I say "don't listen to anyone else...let the Holy Spirit guide you" and if your intentions are pure and you open yourself up to the influence of the Holy Spirit fully, you will be guided to a good place.

 

[BluePhantom]

You bring up interesting points and perspective. Though I am not in agreement, I respect your position.

As I respect yours else I would not have invited you to this discussion. Welcome.

There are many factors in what you brush on. I think the positions on the Church, on Human Nature, on specific circumstance have allot more depth than you are giving credit for. Fear, was around from the start, it is a major player in the Old Testament, in Human Nature, a tool of Every King and Emperor to say the least. It did not originate with the Roman Church. Using it as a tool is a part of our very Nature, from teaching your kids to not play with matches, to using intimidation against a perceived threat.

I think that's a fair point on the surface, but note what Koshergirl and I discussed briefly earlier. It's one thing to establish the fear of physical pain which is temporary. it's quite another to establish eternal torment as the penalty for rebellion. If as i said, rebelliousness is an integral part of human nature (which I agree it is) then the concept of hell fucks us either way doesn't it? If we rebel we are eternally fucked, if we don't rebel we're only temporarily fucked. Either way we get fucked it's just a matter of how long we want it to be.

What is True Religion? How about we start with God First in All Things. We Communicate through Conscience, let the Spirit behind the wheel for a time. Observe, Trust, Learn, watch it unfold as it happens. What is one thing that tells you? God is Always in control, even when you are not. There is a balance and It's driven by Purpose. There is what you plainly know inside, that is confirmed outside? True Religion Must involve Faith and Conscience, It Must involve a Personal Relationship with Our Maker, that No Man, Woman, Institution, Church, Government, conditionally stands between. "God First In All Things". Everything Else is Secondary.

If I interpret your statement correctly you are speaking my language. Is true faith adherence to what we have been told to believe or what we TRULY believe? I dont think you can force someone to spiritually believe something they just don't buy. I think you can force them to obey according to their behaviors. i think you might even get them to try to trick themselves into believing a certain thing in their mind...but if their spirit doesn't buy it I don't think any amount of threat or coercion is going to change their spirit.

Every Institution has it's advantages and disadvantages. There are none without flaw, just like you and I. We can take the good, not get snared by either bad, or what we are not yet ready for.

What is True Religion? A path that brings you closer to God, smarter, and wiser, than from where you started?

i think the best I can give here is that perhaps organized religion is a good starting place to learn the basics, but when one is really ready to advance to the next level of interaction with God they must go out on their own to a place where the individual and God can agree. That's a statement that would get me killed in the Middle Ages mind you.

Allegiance to God is not conditional, it either is or isn't. I think God realizes now that We are not perfect, His relationship with Us, is beyond Understanding, yet through Faith, We know that there is Design and Meaning in Everything We Encounter. There is a point to it.

All I will say is that I have a very different take on that and if you think I am being radical with this thread wait until you hear what I have to say next.

Just a thought. I personally do not find Established Religions to be a threat. Where Anyone or Anything puts me in a position to choose between Them and God, with My Conscience Directing me, I choose to make my own choice. How Many Old Testament Prophets had to make tough choices? How are Any of us different in that way?

I don't think that spiritually anything is a "threat". I think there are things we can do that do not serve our best spiritual purposes but just to give you a little hint of what I mean by "wait until you hear what I have to say next" let me say: "I don't think there is anything we can do to "offend God."

 

[hortysir]

I agree with most of your premise.

the thing was that when Christinianity was "illegal" from the period of Jesus (or perhaps just Saul of Tarses, who made Jesus up) to Constantine, is that there were a lot of local variation on practices and beliefs. Constantine wanted Christianity to be a state religion, with the concept of a King in Heaven and his counterpart a King/Emperor on Earth. An understandable concern, as Rome had suffered nearly 100 years of Emperors knocking each other off in one civil war after another.

Exactly. I mean right square on the nose. So from that perspective Constantine is going to force a version of Christianity that streamlined all those various beliefs into one central belief that assured his power and dominance.

What is to be said of Constantine's conversion?
Can we say, without a doubt, that it wasn't genuine?

We can't really speak to his motive without that element being considered.
Were his intentions pure or just a power-grab?

Can we really say?
*shrug*

 

[BluePhantom]

I agree with most of your premise.

the thing was that when Christinianity was "illegal" from the period of Jesus (or perhaps just Saul of Tarses, who made Jesus up) to Constantine, is that there were a lot of local variation on practices and beliefs. Constantine wanted Christianity to be a state religion, with the concept of a King in Heaven and his counterpart a King/Emperor on Earth. An understandable concern, as Rome had suffered nearly 100 years of Emperors knocking each other off in one civil war after another.

Exactly. I mean right square on the nose. So from that perspective Constantine is going to force a version of Christianity that streamlined all those various beliefs into one central belief that assured his power and dominance.

What is to be said of Constantine's conversion?
Can we say, without a doubt, that it wasn't genuine?

We can't really speak to his motive without that element being considered.
Were his intentions pure or just a power-grab?

Can we really say?
*shrug*

Well, it's a damn good point. I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that Constantine endorsed Christianity for political purposes. I mean he didn't accept Christianity until he was on his deathbed for Christ's sake. I theorize that he did it because it suited him politically and as JoeB wisely points out, it was a new opportunity to set himself up as an earthly God which was the ancient tradition. I mean that point Joe made there is an absolutely powerful point that is so easily overlooked.

No one can know what was in Constantine's mind but my personal appraisal is he saw a great political opportunity, took it and ran. Perhaps on his deathbed he found true redemption, but that's something we can never know. The answer to that is all about what was in his heart and his spirit when he did it....and that's something only he knows for sure.

 

[hortysir]

Exactly. I mean right square on the nose. So from that perspective Constantine is going to force a version of Christianity that streamlined all those various beliefs into one central belief that assured his power and dominance.

What is to be said of Constantine's conversion?
Can we say, without a doubt, that it wasn't genuine?

We can't really speak to his motive without that element being considered.
Were his intentions pure or just a power-grab?

Can we really say?
*shrug*

Well, it's a damn good point. I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that Constantine endorsed Christianity for political purposes. I mean he didn't accept Christianity until he was on his deathbed for Christ's sake. I theorize that he did it because it suited him politically and as JoeB wisely points out, it was a new opportunity to set himself up as an earthly God which was the ancient tradition. I mean that point Joe made there is an absolutely powerful point that is so easily overlooked.

No one can know what was in Constantine's mind but my personal appraisal is he saw a great political opportunity, took it and ran. Perhaps on his deathbed he found true redemption, but that's something we can never know. The answer to that is all about what was in his heart and his spirit when he did it....and that's something only he knows for sure.

I wasn't aware of that.
I thought his conversion came much earlier.
That being the case, we can only judge him by his actions more than his intent as his intent shows through those acts.

I love my church but it has started to grow to that obscene size and scope.
Now, mind you, I'm not Catholic. In fact you could probably call me anti-Catholic for many of the same reasons you've mentioned regarding organized religion.
My "church", or religion, is Pentecostal Church of God (the one that's headquartered in Cleveland, TN.....not the 'other one').
I'm witnessing it's growth into almost a corporation, and I've voiced my disapproval to a couple church leaders.
At our annual 'camp meeting' the main building has a veritable flea market set up inside the doors of the main worship hall.
I mentioned to the state overseer that Jesus would turn those tables over if He were here and I found it disgusting.
He promised to have a meeting about it. I guess I'll find out next summer if it's removed.

Jesus was a rebel against the organized church and we can all see why.

 

[BluePhantom]

I wasn't aware of that.
I thought his conversion came much earlier.
That being the case, we can only judge him by his actions more than his intent as his intent shows through those acts.

yeah Constantine officially endorsed Christianity as the state religion but he continued to observe Pagan rituals throughout his life. Only when he lay dying did he allow himself to be baptized and accept the Holy Spirit. As I said before, if we accept certain guarantees from God then it doesn't really matter. If in his heart and spirit he accepted Christ even moments away from death then we must assume he was spiritually saved. If it was not pure in his heart and spirit then that's not the case. For our purposes it really doesn't matter....as cold as that sounds.

I love my church but it has started to grow to that obscene size and scope.
Now, mind you, I'm not Catholic. In fact you could probably call me anti-Catholic for many of the same reasons you've mentioned regarding organized religion.
My "church", or religion, is Pentecostal Church of God (the one that's headquartered in Cleveland, TN.....not the 'other one').
I'm witnessing it's growth into almost a corporation, and I've voiced my disapproval to a couple church leaders.
At our annual 'camp meeting' the main building has a veritable flea market set up inside the doors of the main worship hall.
I mentioned to the state overseer that Jesus would turn those tables over if He were here and I found it disgusting.
He promised to have a meeting about it. I guess I'll find out next summer if it's removed.

I quoted your whole statement to let you know I read it and understand. I am not willing to give my opinion on that matter. What I think to do or what not to to is according to my beliefs but honestly none of my business and something you should consult with the Holy Spirit to achieve guidance and wisdom about. I hope that makes sense.

Jesus was a rebel against the organized church and we can all see why.

I was hoping someone else would say that instead of me. We don't know a whole lot about what Jesus really said but there seems to be a lot of agreement that he was against the corruption of the organized religion in regards to the Pharisees. We each need to decide for ourselves....is the corruption that Jesus flipped a fucking bitch about in regards to the Pharisees the same corruption we see in "the church today"? If so...doesn't my OP make a hell of a lot more sense?

 

[hortysir]

Simply?

Yup!

 

[Intense]

You bring up interesting points and perspective. Though I am not in agreement, I respect your position.

As I respect yours else I would not have invited you to this discussion. Welcome.

There are many factors in what you brush on. I think the positions on the Church, on Human Nature, on specific circumstance have allot more depth than you are giving credit for. Fear, was around from the start, it is a major player in the Old Testament, in Human Nature, a tool of Every King and Emperor to say the least. It did not originate with the Roman Church. Using it as a tool is a part of our very Nature, from teaching your kids to not play with matches, to using intimidation against a perceived threat.

I think that's a fair point on the surface, but note what Koshergirl and I discussed briefly earlier. It's one thing to establish the fear of physical pain which is temporary. it's quite another to establish eternal torment as the penalty for rebellion. If as i said, rebelliousness is an integral part of human nature (which I agree it is) then the concept of hell fucks us either way doesn't it? If we rebel we are eternally fucked, if we don't rebel we're only temporarily fucked. Either way we get fucked it's just a matter of how long we want it to be.




If I interpret your statement correctly you are speaking my language. Is true faith adherence to what we have been told to believe or what we TRULY believe? I dont think you can force someone to spiritually believe something they just don't buy. I think you can force them to obey according to their behaviors. i think you might even get them to try to trick themselves into believing a certain thing in their mind...but if their spirit doesn't buy it I don't think any amount of threat or coercion is going to change their spirit.



i think the best I can give here is that perhaps organized religion is a good starting place to learn the basics, but when one is really ready to advance to the next level of interaction with God they must go out on their own to a place where the individual and God can agree. That's a statement that would get me killed in the Middle Ages mid you.

Allegiance to God is not conditional, it either is or isn't. I think God realizes now that We are not perfect, His relationship with Us, is beyond Understanding, yet through Faith, We know that there is Design and Meaning in Everything We Encounter. There is a point to it.

All I will say is that I have a very different take on that and if you think I am being radical with this thread wait until you hear what I have to say next.

Just a thought. I personally do not find Established Religions to be a threat. Where Anyone or Anything puts me in a position to choose between Them and God, with My Conscience Directing me, I choose to make my own choice. How Many Old Testament Prophets had to make tough choices? How are Any of us different in that way?

I don't think that spiritually anything is a "threat". I think there are things we can do that do not serve our best spiritual purposes but just to give you a little hint of what I mean by "wait until you hear what I have to say next" let me say: "I don't think there is anything we can do to "offend God."

As I respect yours else I would not have invited you to this discussion. Welcome.

Thanks. We Each learn through contrast. Sometimes we are just looking at the same thing from unique vantage points. Scripture does advise a multitude of council, for this reason. Someone's usually bound to pick up on something others miss.

I think that's a fair point on the surface, but note what Koshergirl and I discussed briefly earlier. It's one thing to establish the fear of physical pain which is temporary. it's quite another to establish eternal torment as the penalty for rebellion. If as i said, rebelliousness is an integral part of human nature (which I agree it is) then the concept of hell fucks us either way doesn't it? If we rebel we are eternally fucked, if we don't rebel we're only temporarily fucked. Either way we get fucked it's just a matter of how long we want it to be.

I see the threats used as a collar and a leash. It's a threat on the Target, and every witness. It was about control, there is good and bad in that. There was a time where only a select few actually read the scriptures, or even understood the language (Latin) they were read in. There is a danger in that, be it Religion or Government.

Here is a heavy Chapter from Jeremiah in relation to False Witness and misdirection in High Places. It's pretty blunt, and it deals with punishment and condemnation.

The Holy Bible

Here is a Heavy Chapter from Ezekiel which deals with condemnation and points to Salvation.

The Holy Bible


We were put here to do more than comply. Allot have damage has been done in the name of God and Government, but that is the History of Mankind. We build up Idol after Idol, in the hope of being delivered, protected, taken care of. I would argue that this is not the role of Government or the Church. We need Guides and Referee's, not Ultimate Authorities, confusing their roles with God's. They are not God. They do not have Ultimate Authority or Say. Christ Himself came for and with Salvation, to redeem a Race of Condemned beings. We're here. We screwed up. Face it. The game is not over, neither is God far away. God is hands on, through cause and effect, through Conscience, through Prayer and Vision, We reach for Him. For Each of us, that's an Internal decision, choice, an internal Action. We help each other along the way, not lord over each other, there is no higher and lower, we each are a part of the equation, we each matter. Salvation is of God, not Man or Institution. We Pray for it, but it is on God's terms, not Ours.

If I interpret your statement correctly you are speaking my language. Is true faith adherence to what we have been told to believe or what we TRULY believe? I dont think you can force someone to spiritually believe something they just don't buy. I think you can force them to obey according to their behaviors. i think you might even get them to try to trick themselves into believing a certain thing in their mind...but if their spirit doesn't buy it I don't think any amount of threat or coercion is going to change their spirit.

Matters of Conscience are Unalienable Rights. There are Issues between Each of Us and Our Creator, that are "No Fly Zones" for the rest of Us.

There are matters we each need to decide for ourselves, look at it as a built in fail safe. Consider that the Reason for Our being, Each of Us, may be more important to God, than the Tangents and messes, we create. In the same Spirit, Salvation cannot be counterfeiting, there is no faking conviction. This may be more an issue of acceptance and readiness than sink or swim. I guess unless one consciously chooses to war against the Author of creation. Again, We are not the Referee's. Who's to say.

Locke, Madison, Thoreau wrote on that. I post "Memorial and Remonstrance" allot. You should check it out.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

i think the best I can give here is that perhaps organized religion is a good starting place to learn the basics, but when one is really ready to advance to the next level of interaction with God they must go out on their own to a place where the individual and God can agree. That's a statement that would get me killed in the Middle Ages mid you.

I think so too. It has merit. There are times when many of us need the reminders and the security net to catch us when we fall too, or stray too far. I'm glad they are there. It's also a good place to share experience and conviction too.

My best friend is a Priest and a Theologian. There have been many a time when I have either caused him to choke on his meal, or just want to smack me. I'm not big on Lynchings, Witch Hunts or Cross Burnings, Tar and Featherings, stonings, or angry Mobs. either.... Call it Self Preservation.

All I will say is that I have a very different take on that and if you think I am being radical with this thread wait until you hear what I have to say next.

I'm good. I try never to blame God for anything We do to Each Other. Just something to consider.

I don't think that spiritually anything is a "threat". I think there are things we can do that do not serve our best spiritual purposes but just to give you a little hint of what I mean by "wait until you hear what I have to say next" let me say: "I don't think there is anything we can do to "offend God."

I would disagree there. My experience is that there are matters that go from bad to worse, each round, the more that one struggles with the forces of creation. Especially when one knows better. There are things one cannot hide from. That said. Our Reason for being takes precedent over our games and diversions, at least that is my hope. I do thank God that the Effects of what we do do get contained. I am an advocate for Divine Intervention. To take Scripture Seriously, is in part to know that Salvation is the End Game, here. There is a Commitment required.

 

[capella]

Ideally, many Americans are raised with religion. As a result, many build their lives around structured ethics shared by others who feel such ethics are correct. But there is a flip side.

First, not everyone believes in the same religious philosophy. Second, too many religious followers interpret their religious doctrine. And yes, many religious followers remain in compliance with what the preacher teaches, mommy said, or nanna.

Sadly, those who are with us today also follow the instructions of those who were before them. And in many instances, this is the root to much of our confusion.

After all, each generation develops its own theory of what they believe is the correct passage towards religious clarity. No matter how much research evolves around one religion or another, people will continue to debate their opinions based on the ideology of others.

As a result, our world remains divided. First because Christians don't argue with Muslims. Jehovah Witness don't agree with Buddhist. And seemingly, all religions practice discrimination.

But when there is a world crisis such as the economy, I cannot fathom us resolving our religious indifference without uniting; and having positive dialogue that brings us together, instead of pull us a part.

However, too often, many want to inflict vengeance, hatred, jealousy, and pain upon others to make themselves feel good and to support their ideology. But who cares, in the end the cemetery has the last word, because all religions find their way beneath the ground.

Fellow citizens, if we continue down this path, we will all end up being isolated from each other and harbor even greater ailments that cause us more pain. No money, mansion, car, or clothes goes to the Spirit world, so why do we keep fighting over this stuff?

Therefore, I developed matthew2229. To learn more look me up, After all, sharing wisdom helps elevate foolishness.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with most of your premise.

the thing was that when Christinianity was "illegal" from the period of Jesus (or perhaps just Saul of Tarses, who made Jesus up) to Constantine, is that there were a lot of local variation on practices and beliefs. Constantine wanted Christianity to be a state religion, with the concept of a King in Heaven and his counterpart a King/Emperor on Earth. An understandable concern, as Rome had suffered nearly 100 years of Emperors knocking each other off in one civil war after another.

Exactly. I mean right square on the nose. So from that perspective Constantine is going to force a version of Christianity that streamlined all those various beliefs into one central belief that assured his power and dominance.

What is to be said of Constantine's conversion?
Can we say, without a doubt, that it wasn't genuine?

We can't really speak to his motive without that element being considered.
Were his intentions pure or just a power-grab?

Can we really say?
*shrug*

He didn't actually take Baptism until he was on his deathbed...

I should also point out that it takes a certain level of arrogance to actually try to mold a religion into a form you want it. He's the one who called the Council of Nicea to resolve conflicts between the Catholic/Orthodox version of Christianity and various "Heresies" such as the Arians, the Monophysites, etc. as to the "nature" of God and the Trinity. He was the one who decided that Matthew Luke Mark and John were going to be the Canonical Gospels, but the Gnostic Gospels were going to be thrown out.

In short, he had an agenda not only to promote Christianity, but a specific flavor of it, a flavor that held in place for 1200 years burning anyone who had a contrary idea as a "heretic" until Martin Luther and Henry VIII finally got away with it.

And again, those "Reformations" were just as much about politics as faith. Henry just wanted out of a barren marriage. Luther was probably sincere in his complaints, but the German princes latched onto them to resist the authority of the Hapsburg Emperor.

 

[Intense]

Ideally, many Americans are raised with religion. As a result, many build their lives around structured ethics shared by others who feel such ethics are correct. But there is a flip side.

First, not everyone believes in the same religious philosophy. Second, too many religious followers interpret their religious doctrine. And yes, many religious followers remain in compliance with what the preacher teaches, mommy said, or nanna.

Sadly, those who are with us today also follow the instructions of those who were before them. And in many instances, this is the root to much of our confusion.

After all, each generation develops its own theory of what they believe is the correct passage towards religious clarity. No matter how much research evolves around one religion or another, people will continue to debate their opinions based on the ideology of others.

As a result, our world remains divided. First because Christians don't argue with Muslims. Jehovah Witness don't agree with Buddhist. And seemingly, all religions practice discrimination.

But when there is a world crisis such as the economy, I cannot fathom us resolving our religious indifference without uniting; and having positive dialogue that brings us together, instead of pull us a part.

However, too often, many want to inflict vengeance, hatred, jealousy, and pain upon others to make themselves feel good and to support their ideology. But who cares, in the end the cemetery has the last word, because all religions find their way beneath the ground.

Fellow citizens, if we continue down this path, we will all end up being isolated from each other and harbor even greater ailments that cause us more pain. No money, mansion, car, or clothes goes to the Spirit world, so why do we keep fighting over this stuff?

Therefore, I developed matthew2229. To learn more look me up, After all, sharing wisdom helps elevate foolishness.

You may be confusing Religion with Human Nature, just a thought. Eliminating Religion does not eliminate Individual Perspective. Religion is not the root of our faults or Evils. Rather than bash it or target it, why not just work on improving your higher self? Why have any expectations over the actions of others at all, when the root for each of us, lies within. Isn't that the example we should be focused on, rather than leading others?

 

[Avatar4321]

I have a few problems with the "Logical givens"

1) An organization of any kind that relies on the willingness of followers to obey must enforce obedience.

This is completely illogical. If an organization relies on the willingness of followers to obey, they can't enforce anything. The second force becomes involved, the willingness of the follower is undermined. That's why we are given free will. So we will choose the good. It can't be forced on us.

2) Fear is an extremely effective method for establishing obedience.

Not nearly as effective as love

3) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've long disagreed with this. I dont think power corrupts people at all. I think people corrupt power. Power just reveals flaws individuals already had but weren't obviously flaunted. It's the people that's the problem, not the power.

4) No Roman Emperor or Pope will ever allow a scripture that they deem as “rebellious” or anti-establishment” to become part of the mainstream theology of the state religion

.

True, though no Roman Emperoer or Pope allowed what we consider thte modern Bible. The fact is the mainstream version of todays Bible is the Protestant version, which wasnt allowed by either.

5) The political need of the church for obedience by the faithful has not ended. For the church to survive it still requires the willful obedience of the people.

Not sure what political need there is. Can you be more specific?