• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity as I thought it was supposed to be........

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Ritual is about the intention -- not the nuts and bolts.

Well I'm not sure what you read into my post or if I just did horribly at expressing what I meant, because I agree with you, like so much I can't even say....10000% man!!!!

So if we're on the same page YAY!

And if you thought I said something else I'd like a chance to read it over again myself and give a mind correction to my language.

Intention in ritual is actually a large part of me deciding to regularly attend services at an Anglican Church near by instead of seeking out the 'right' place.... because the right place was already inside of me whenever I engaged it. :)

Here's the quote:

What's laughable is the "coincidence" that "genuine Xy" is what he professes to practice. It's also laughable to think that Xy is, in any sense "pre-Roman," since Jesus was born, lived, taught, and died during the Roman occupation.
Third, it's laughable to assume that there even is a "genuine" Xy in terms of anyof the cultural expressions of it.

Ok.... so perhaps I read it a little strongly, 'laughable' sounds a little different that 'laughed at' for some reason, so thanks for explaining what you meant by the smilie, they sometimes do leave a little grey area for interpretation.


:namaste
SageTree
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So what you're saying is that Christianity isn't supposed to be what it originally was.
No, I'm saying that turning it into some Pharisee-esque bastion of authoritative doctrine (and keeping it that way) is not what Xy was ever meant to be.
Who had the right doctrine during the early ages?
"Right doctrine" isn't the issue. "Right intention" is.
You can call my doctrine "Static", I just believe that what's right is right and never changes.
Bully for you! Difference between you and I is that I don't ridicule your version. There's room in Xy for everyone to be "right" if such is your persuasion.
Do you believe women should lead church services as opposed to what Paul wrote?
Yes.
If so, what year exactly did this change take place?
It's always been that way, except in certain places.
Where is a handy list of what rules are still applicable and what rules aren't?
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment, and a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend upon these two."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well I'm not sure what you read into my post or if I just did horribly at expressing what I meant, because I agree with you, like so much I can't even say....10000% man!!!!

So if we're on the same page YAY!

And if you thought I said something else I'd like a chance to read it over again myself and give a mind correction to my language.

Intention in ritual is actually a large part of me deciding to regularly attend services at an Anglican Church near by instead of seeking out the 'right' place.... because the right place was already inside of me whenever I engaged it. :)



Ok.... so perhaps I read it a little strongly, 'laughable' sounds a little different that 'laughed at' for some reason, so thanks for explaining what you meant by the smilie, they sometimes do leave a little grey area for interpretation.


:namaste
SageTree
Oh, I'm sure you and I are in complete agreement here. My posts were meant to be supportive statements of your posts. What's ridiculous, IMO, is the assertion that there is some magical "right way" or "right doctrine" or "right expression" for Xy. That just isn't what Xy is.
 

Shermana

Heretic
No, I'm saying that turning it into some Pharisee-esque bastion of authoritative doctrine (and keeping it that way) is not what Xy was ever meant to be.

"Right doctrine" isn't the issue. "Right intention" is.

Bully for you! Difference between you and I is that I don't ridicule your version. There's room in Xy for everyone to be "right" if such is your persuasion.

Yes.

It's always been that way, except in certain places.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment, and a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend upon these two."

The term "Pharisee" is for those who put artificial rules and regulations. To use it as a term for authority altogether is inaccurate.

If your brand of Christianity involves Syncretism, that's fine. You say you didn't ridicule my beliefs, yet you put a smiley of laughing when I made the claim that the original Church were in fact "Messianic Jews". Interesting. Did you intentionally avoid the issue of women teaching in Church and whether it still applies? The "except in certain places" were the original Messianic Jews I refer to. Such a statement is a broad sweep of the actual history of the disputes and schisms, and you take away the very history of "Christianity" by saying that these schisms and disputes had no true meaning. If they fought and killed each other over what they considered "Tradition" and "Doctrine", who are you to say it was all meaningless?

What exactly is your position of what "Christianity is supposed to be" then as the OP question?

"If you don't really love me then you won't follow my teachings" - Well then.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
he term "Pharisee" is for those who put artificial rules and regulations. To use it as a term for authority altogether is inaccurate.
I didn't use it that way. I did use it to denote artificial rules, such as your post places on Xy for it to be "genuine."
If your brand of Christianity involves Syncretism, that's fine.
It doesn't involve syncretism. At all.
You say you didn't ridicule my beliefs, yet you put a smiley of laughing when I made the claim that the original Church were in fact "Messianic Jews".
You didn't say "original." you said "genuine." Meaning that my version of Xy isn't "genuine." meaning that it's false. That's worth a laugh, because it's ridiculous. Don't know about you, but when something's ridiculous, I laugh. Usually hard!
Such a statement is a broad sweep of the actual history of the disputes and schisms, and you take away the very history of "Christianity" by saying that these schisms and disputes had no true meaning. If they fought and killed each other over what they considered "Tradition" and "Doctrine", who are you to say it was all meaningless?
Dispute, schism, fighting, killing -- they are meaningless. What has meaning is Christ.
What exactly is your position of what "Christianity is supposed to be" then as the OP question?
Xy is supposed to be a way of life -- not a religion. Just as you have incorporated Jesus' teaching on how to live into Judaism, so others have done with Paganism, African and Native American religions. And each time, Xy appears a little different, because it's not about the specific rituals, words and traditions, it's about our intentions.
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Oh, I'm sure you and I are in complete agreement here. My posts were meant to be supportive statements of your posts. What's ridiculous, IMO, is the assertion that there is some magical "right way" or "right doctrine" or "right expression" for Xy. That just isn't what Xy is.

Right on man, went I went back to read what I wrote I saw that I had 'intention' and a few other statements that leaned that way and decided you MUST have been in support.
So thanks for clarifying and also relating on that point. Sometimes I get worried about the sense I've made of my Experiences, when the consensus I encounter seems otherwise or at least isn't talked about openly so that I 'get' that is what they understand as well.

Right intention, or complete intention is one of the steps of the Eightfold Path in Buddhism.

And a useful understanding it has been to me :D

Self-depricating horse manure.
@ what post?
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
It's from the Monty Python sketch "the bookshop" from the Contractual Obligations album.

I will have to dig this one up. I've watched most of the Flying Circus but have never encountered an album. Youtube probably has it :D )(
 

Shermana

Heretic
I didn't use it that way. I did use it to denote artificial rules, such as your post places on Xy for it to be "genuine."

It doesn't involve syncretism. At all.

You didn't say "original." you said "genuine." Meaning that my version of Xy isn't "genuine." meaning that it's false. That's worth a laugh, because it's ridiculous. Don't know about you, but when something's ridiculous, I laugh. Usually hard!

Dispute, schism, fighting, killing -- they are meaningless. What has meaning is Christ.

Xy is supposed to be a way of life -- not a religion. Just as you have incorporated Jesus' teaching on how to live into Judaism, so others have done with Paganism, African and Native American religions. And each time, Xy appears a little different, because it's not about the specific rituals, words and traditions, it's about our intentions.

Please elaborate what you mean by ""What has meaning is Christ", does that mean that the words of Christ are permanent and unchanging? Why would it be an artificial ruling to say that you have to obey what Jesus says?

You say it's a "Way of Life". doesn't a "Way of life" involve rules and disciplines? What exactly is that way of life and what makes it genuine? Did Christ say something about "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness"? Are you saying that you can ignore the verses that say you must do exactly what Yashua says? Where do you draw the line?

The word "Genuine" refers to "That which is the real thing". Do you believe that JWs are genuine Christians? How about Mormons? At what point do you draw the line? How about "Christian Pagans"?

If you say it doesn't allow Syncretism, then what exactly are you saying about how it applies to the original belief?
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Please elaborate what you mean by ""What has meaning is Christ", does that mean that the words of Christ are permanent and unchanging?
No. Any reader with a brain stem knows that words are often changeable. It is the spirit that is unchangeable.
Why would it be an artificial ruling to say that you have to obey what Jesus says?
What does Jesus say?
You say it's a "Way of Life". doesn't a "Way of life" involve rules and disciplines?
yes, but not an unfeigned worship of them.
What exactly is that way of life and what makes it genuine?
Love, mercy, forbearance, inclusion, hospitality, and liberation, among others.
It's genuine because it shows forth the true nature of the spirit within us.
Where do you draw the line?
Love God -- love neighbor. All the Law and the prophets depend upon these two.
Do you believe that JWs are genuine Christians?
Do they love God and neighbor?
How about Mormons?
See above.
At what point do you draw the line?
Third verse -- same as the first.
How about "Christian Pagans"?
What do you think?
If you say it doesn't allow Syncretism, then what exactly are you saying about how it applies to the original belief?
What was the "original belief?"
 

Shermana

Heretic
"Love God -- love neighbor. All the Law and the prophets depend upon these two."
I've seen this interpretation of this verse so many times. It doesn't mean that's all you have to do. It means that is their basis. Otherwise, you're saying you can ignore everything else.

So does this mean that Christians can now engage in fornication without any care in the world?

Any reader with a brain stem knows that words are often changeable. It is the spirit that is unchangeable.
I don't completely understand what you mean with this quote, are you saying that Jesus' teachings are permanent or not?

yes, but not an unfeigned worship of them.yes, but not an unfeigned worship of them.
So you regard any kind of permanent discipline or code based on Jesus' teachings as "worshiping" them. How is it "worship" exactly? I notice you twice dived away from the issue of women in church, I can understand why.
What was the "original belief?"
What I originally called "Genuine Christianity", the original Messianic Jewish Torah following way of the early Church.

"What does Jesus say?"
"Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness".
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It doesn't mean that's all you have to do.
I see it differently.
So does this mean that Christians can now engage in fornication without any care in the world?
Fornication violates love of neighbor.
I don't completely understand what you mean with this quote, are you saying that Jesus' teachings are permanent or not?
I think the teachings are not completely immutable. They change in their particulars, but not in their essence.
So you regard any kind of permanent discipline or code based on Jesus' teachings as "worshiping" them. How is it "worship" exactly?
As disciplines become culturally meaningless, they're worth nothing. Changing disciplines keeps the practiced tenets of Xy relevant to the culture in which Xy is thriving. To retain old disciplines just because they are disciplines elevates them to a level of importance above the tenets they're supposed to embody for us.
I notice you twice dived away from the issue of women in church, I can understand why.
I didn't "dive away" from anything. The issue of women in church is a non-issue for me. They are members, same as men. They can be called to any ministry or activity, same as men.
What I originally called "Genuine Christianity", the original Messianic Jewish Torah following way of the early Church.
********. That's not a belief -- that's an organizational structure. What was the "original belief?"
"Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness".
That's one thing Jesus says, and it's taken out of context. That's not a statement of law, but a statement of exasperation.

You'll have to do much, much better than this.
 

Shermana

Heretic
It IS a statement of Law, Matthew 7:22-23 is specifically saying that those who call Jesus but who do "Acts of Lawlessness" (Specifically referring to the Law) will be rejected. Likewise with 1 John 3.

What do you mean I will have to do much better? All you do is brush it off as a statement of exasperation? YOU WIll have to do much better than that. If you say something is out of context, it helps your argument to say what the context actually is. I don't see why its out of context. Likewise, Jesus says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandment shall be "Called the Least in Heaven"? What is the context of that?

It is clear that you associate "retaining old disciplines" as a bad thing, explain why, and at what point they became "old". Do you have a handy list of what teachings of Jesus are still binding?

The "original belief" obviously has to do with the "Structure". You are trying to avoid the idea that Jesus actually says there are things you must keep in mind.

If the issue of women in church is a non-issue for you, good for you, but that doesn't answer the question for anyone else.

So you're saying that simply retaining old principles puts them on a level higher than the person giving the principles?

So apparently "Fornication violates love of neighbor", apparently that's a Law. Are you worshiping that Law?

Just because you think Christianity is a loose and open system doesn't mean that it is. Just because you think that actually considering Jesus' commandments as binding is worshiping them doesn't make it so. Just because you think Matthew 7:22-23 has nothing to do with the Law doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:
Top