• 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!

Christians only: Did Christ found a religion...

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
lunamoth said:
I don't want to interupt the conversation between Victor and Sojourner, but there is another aspect of this that I'd like to bring out.

This conversation is naturally dove-tailing with carderos' thread on Who Claims Authority, which to me is about drawing lines in the sand and proclaiming who is out. This thread is about the Universal Church, which I think about as being a magnet that draws human hearts and minds in.

One snippet of Scripture that is often used as a bludgeon in these conversations is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Those who claim to know the truth but in fact really wish to lead sheep astray. I honestly think such wolves are very few and far between. It seems to me that a wolf would have to knowingly believe that the Church is Christ's Bride and then also believe that what they are doing is to intentionally go against that. Rather than wolves, I think what we typically have are sheep who nibble themselves astray and also 'black sheep' who for whatever reason are not ready to accept some aspect of doctrine, often a very small part of it at that. But we are all still sheep.

If the sheep dogs, those who feel it is their job to nip at the heels of the sheep and keep them in line, wrongly identify the black sheep as wolves, it is in effect their own doings that can drive those sheep away from the flock. Being humans, rather than animals, this is sadly often the case. Those black sheep can fend for themselves or start a new flock where they are accepted.

But Christ does not act like a sheep dog, nipping at our heels to keep us in. He provides for us, and leads us to green pastuers and fresh water, and when we do nibble ourselves astray He comes to look for us, whether we are black or white or rainbow colored. He holds the Church together by His love.

Sorry this metaphor is kind of hokey, but it illustrates somewhat how I view the Church, vs. religion.

2 c,
lunamoth

Great post! Wish I could frubal ya!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
lunamoth said:
One snippet of Scripture that is often used as a bludgeon in these conversations is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Those who claim to know the truth but in fact really wish to lead sheep astray. I honestly think such wolves are very few and far between. It seems to me that a wolf would have to knowingly believe that the Church is Christ's Bride and then also believe that what they are doing is to intentionally go against that. Rather than wolves, I think what we typically have are sheep who nibble themselves astray and also 'black sheep' who for whatever reason are not ready to accept some aspect of doctrine, often a very small part of it at that. But we are all still sheep.
Excellent....in more words you explained what I meant here:
Simply in the knowability and awareness of the individual. And how they respond to Grace. That makes the world of difference.
From an objective perspective one can not know what shade of sheep people are. And I think we can agree that it is not within our capacity to see the shade of others. Not only do we not have the capacity, but we are called not to judge one's eternal state. But we are called to maintain, support, heal, etc. the Bride of Christ and the Body of our Lord from those who can diasease it or cause damage to the members of the Body. For the body consists of members who are to mirror the qualities of the Almighty. Doctrine/dogma are those qualities.
lunamoth said:
If the sheep dogs, those who feel it is their job to nip at the heels of the sheep and keep them in line, wrongly identify the black sheep as wolves, it is in effect their own doings that can drive those sheep away from the flock.
Nipping is one of many things that lead people astray. It could be a boring priest, or the fact that they don't have a good choir. Surely you see these as unjustifiable? What justifies a seperation from the Body? How can you seperate from something that is not tangible and objective?
lunamoth said:
Being humans, rather than animals, this is sadly often the case. Those black sheep can fend for themselves or start a new flock where they are accepted.
I can't remember who said this: "I'd follow truth, even if I was the only one doing so". That may mean that you may not feel accepted or that your priest/pastor is unjustly scolding you for an act or whatever it is that can lead you away. None of that matters to me (that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to fix it from within or support you if it happened to you). So long as the qualities (doctrine\dogma) of Christ are within the walls of the Church, any disease (whatever act/saying doesn't mirror Christ) will be either fixed or extracted from the Body (if needed).
lunamoth said:
But Christ does not act like a sheep dog, nipping at our heels to keep us in. He provides for us, and leads us to green pastuers and fresh water, and when we do nibble ourselves astray He comes to look for us, whether we are black or white or rainbow colored. He holds the Church together by His love.
Beautiful and I agree.
I would like to add that God's Love doesn't always come in pretty colors though. What do I mean? I mean that God may be trying to lead his sheep back into the Church through suffering or any other mean that may require you to pick up your cross. This may even mean "nipping at our heels". The intent is to get the sheep back into the herd with the family. What matters is doctrine\dogma thru an objective means.
Keep your eye on the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:24):)

1 Peter 2:21
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

lunamoth said:
Sorry this metaphor is kind of hokey, but it illustrates somewhat how I view the Church, vs. religion.
No, that was good. It helps explain things.

The Least in Christ,
~Victor
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Hi Victor,

Victor said:
Excellent....in more words you explained what I meant here:
Simply in the knowability and awareness of the individual. And how they respond to Grace. That makes the world of difference.

Thank you and yes I think that it is very important how one responds to grace.

From an objective perspective one can not know what shade of sheep people are. And I think we can agree that it is not within our capacity to see the shade of others. Not only do we not have the capacity, but we are called not to judge one's eternal state.
I'm wondering if we can even know what color sheep we ourselves are...but we can know that we are sheep, listening to our Master's voice, following to the best of our ability. Quite right, we are not to judge. Which is why I am mystified when we sanction and punish others for failing to seem sufficiently sheep-like.
But we are called to maintain, support, heal, etc. the Bride of Christ and the Body of our Lord from those who can diasease it or cause damage to the members of the Body. For the body consists of members who are to mirror the qualities of the Almighty. Doctrine/dogma are those qualities.
Who is the 'we' that are called to maintain support heal the Bride of Christ? We are the Bride of Christ...and yes we are called to support and heal each other, but this is sublty different from 'maintaining the Bride of Christ.' I'm thinking that you mean that someone needs to maintain the Tradition that tells us the character of the Bride of Christ. In that I agree. I agree that Dogma/Tradition defines those qualities, as does the Bible, and that the Catholic/Orthodox Church were guided by the Holy Spirit in elucidating Tradition. I appreciate the role of the Catholic/Orthodox Chruch in maintaining Tradition. It is as you suggest the standard against which all theology is measured.

Nipping is one of many things that lead people astray. It could be a boring priest, or the fact that they don't have a good choir.
I think these examples are more related to what I called 'nibbling,' as in seeing a little grass that looks greener (church vs. golf?) and just bit by bit drifting (TV vs. prayers?) away from active participation in the Church (RF or reading my Bible?).
Surely you see these as unjustifiable? What justifies a seperation from the Body? How can you seperate from something that is not tangible and objective?
I'd say that this kind of thing does not separate any baptized person from the Body, but just makes them quiescent/inactive. Some people really do want to leave and they join other religions or become atheistic. In this life they really do reject for one reason or another Christianity. A lot of the time I think this rejection is based upon (or justified by) the uncharitable behavior of Christians, including and especially the clergy. It's also the lure of the material world, and that old devil pride (intellectual pride in my case).

The Body of Christ is tangible and objective, it is the Love of God manifest in the world. We manifest that love. Love does not divide and seperate, it unifies. If people who seek God leave it is because they have not found God's love manifest in whatever instrument/religion they have experienced.

I can't remember who said this: "I'd follow truth, even if I was the only one doing so". That may mean that you may not feel accepted or that your priest/pastor is unjustly scolding you for an act or whatever it is that can lead you away. None of that matters to me (that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to fix it from within or support you if it happened to you). So long as the qualities (doctrine\dogma) of Christ are within the walls of the Church, any disease (
whatever act/saying doesn't mirror Christ) will be either fixed or extracted from the Body (if needed).
The quality of Christ that is found within the 'walls' of the Church (Universal) is Love. If a member is 'ill' (sinning) should they be sent out into the world or should they be kept in the care of the Physician?

Yes, the Catholic Church has a right, an obligation, to say clearly what its doctrine is, and it is up to the members to accept this, or try to accept it. It is right of the priests and rest of the 'authority' of the church to educate their flock and to correct those who believe otherwise. Yet, it also then needs to use love to show why this doctrine has efficacy in growing closer to God. Just saying 'this is the way it is and if you don't accept it then you must leave' is going to result in, well, people leaving.

I would like to add that God's Love doesn't always come in pretty colors though. What do I mean? I mean that God may be trying to lead his sheep back into the Church through suffering or any other mean that may require you to pick up your cross. This may even mean "nipping at our heels". The intent is to get the sheep back into the herd with the family.
I think about this a lot, and I just don't know. Certainly there is suffering and sacrifice in following Christ. But Christ does not make us suffer, no I don't believe so. I think that when a teaching/doctrine is good and upheld in love, those who do not follow it create their own hell, or make their own distance from God. They can remain there or they can 'repent' (which does not mean to be really really sorry, but to actually change their ways and realign their will with God's) and return to God. I never liked that story about the shepherd who beats the sheep with his rod until the sheep's leg is broken and then can only rely upon God. No, I pretty much reject that charater for God. I think instead of the sheep who does not believe that the grass is good and so starves herself, or eats poisonous weeds instead. Once she is hungry and sick then she may again decide to trust her Master.

But, there are sheep dogs that nip. Maybe they are doing a service for the Lord as long as they don't instead end up hurting the flock by their good intentions. Justice is tricky. Mercy and compassion are safer bets.

What matters is doctrine\dogma thru an objective means.
An objective means? I think that is pretty much impossible.
Keep your eye on the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:24):)


Thank you!

In His Peace,
lunamoth
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
lunamoth said:
I'm wondering if we can even know what color sheep we ourselves are...but we can know that we are sheep, listening to our Master's voice, following to the best of our ability.

John 10:
16..I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.
26...because you are not among my sheep.

Three things I'd like to point out from these verses.
1. God has other sheep that are not of his fold, but he plans to lead both to become ONE.
2. There are sheep that will not be among his sheep.
3. Being a sheep only assures us of one thing, that you are a sheep. Not all sheep are of God's fold.
lunamoth said:
Quite right, we are not to judge. Which is why I am mystified when we sanction and punish others for failing to seem sufficiently sheep-like.
You won't get an argument from me on this. But what I will argue against is any philosophy/world view that is contrary to human nature and to Divine Law. To stay silent is far more damaging.
lunamoth said:
Who is the 'we' that are called to maintain support heal the Bride of Christ?
The sheeps and shepards that are in the Body of Christ.
lunamoth said:
We are the Bride of Christ...and yes we are called to support and heal each other, but this is sublty different from 'maintaining the Bride of Christ.' I'm thinking that you mean that someone needs to maintain the Tradition that tells us the character of the Bride of Christ. In that I agree.
The character? I'm not sure I'm following here. The Bride of Christ is to mirror Christ Himself.
lunamoth said:
I agree that Dogma/Tradition defines those qualities, as does the Bible, and that the Catholic/Orthodox Church were guided by the Holy Spirit in elucidating Tradition. I appreciate the role of the Catholic/Orthodox Chruch in maintaining Tradition. It is as you suggest the standard against which all theology is measured.
Awesome...
lunamoth said:
I think these examples are more related to what I called 'nibbling,' as in seeing a little grass that looks greener (church vs. golf?) and just bit by bit drifting (TV vs. prayers?) away from active participation in the Church (RF or reading my Bible?).
But you don't see them as a justifiable means of "seperating" from that local church or from the denomination, do you?
lunamoth said:
I'd say that this kind of thing does not separate any baptized person from the Body, but just makes them quiescent/inactive.
I don't either. But that's not what I was asking. I was asking if such things justify a seperation, not if they literally would be seperated from the Body of Christ.
lunamoth said:
Some people really do want to leave and they join other religions or become atheistic. In this life they really do reject for one reason or another Christianity. A lot of the time I think this rejection is based upon (or justified by) the uncharitable behavior of Christians, including and especially the clergy. It's also the lure of the material world, and that old devil pride (intellectual pride in my case).
The reasons are many and I agree that such things can lead people astray. But should they? Does that justify someone from seperating themselves from the Church?
I don't believe it does and I take to heart only where it matters. The Church can screw up anywhere and everywhere so long as it doesn't change or butcher doctrine. Everything else is subject to error.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Hi Victor, Thank you for your interest in continuing this conversation. :)

Victor said:
John 10:
16..I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.
26...because you are not among my sheep.

Three things I'd like to point out from these verses.
1. God has other sheep that are not of his fold, but he plans to lead both to become ONE.
2. There are sheep that will not be among his sheep.
3. Being a sheep only assures us of one thing, that you are a sheep. Not all sheep are of God's fold.

Can I sum from this that to be a sheep in God's fold means to one who listen's to His voice? There are also some who do not listen/believe, yet they are still destined by God to become part of His fold?

I think I said before that I have recently backed off from my 'radical universalism' in which I held that absolutely everyone is saved in the next life no matter what. I felt that this absolute stance was in effect taking something that is not mine, namely God's power to save whomever He wishes. But I see no reason from the Bible, the Catechism or Doctrine why I must believe anyone actually ends up in separation from God in the next life regardless of what they do or believe, baptized or not, in this life. I think there's another chance after death to accept God and it's impossible for me to imagine anyone turning this down, or perhaps at that judgement we see that God is and has been choosing us all along... Anyhow, this is all back story to explain where I am coming from.


The sheeps and shepards that are in the Body of Christ.
The character? I'm not sure I'm following here. The Bride of Christ is to mirror Christ Himself.
I think this analogy is getting too confusing now (at least I am getting confused :D ). I know I know, I started it. To sum, yes, the Body/Bride of Christ, the Church (all interchangable, agreed?) is to reflect Christ to the world. I think in large part this means loving and healing each other and the world.

But you don't see them as a justifiable means of "seperating" from that local church or from the denomination, do you?
I don't either. But that's not what I was asking. I was asking if such things justify a seperation, not if they literally would be seperated from the Body of Christ.
I don't understand what you mean by 'justifiable separation.' If for whatever reason a person no longer believes in God or believes that God is not found in any Christian church no matter what the reason then they certainly do feel justified in leaving it. We are each responsible for our own choices. Are they justified (and that is a loaded term, no?) in the eyes of God. I would never hazard a guess. I think God is merciful and He has a full understanding of the things that drive people away from organized religion. Again, this gets to the heart of why I make a distinction between the Church and religion. The Church is the people; religion is a tool, or a vehicle. The Church is a metaphysical whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and it remains perfect in spite of our imperfections and infallibilites.

The reasons are many and I agree that such things can lead people astray. But should they? Does that justify someone from seperating themselves from the Church?
I don't believe it does and I take to heart only where it matters. The Church can screw up anywhere and everywhere so long as it doesn't change or butcher doctrine. Everything else is subject to error.
Now there is an interesting point. Can/does doctrine change? I see it as a fluid process, not one in which anything goes or all is relative, but as I've said before that we are like sailboats in the wind. The wind is from God and it has power and direction, yet for us to make use of it we don't usually go straight into it but tack to the left and right, constantly adapting but always going in one overall direction.

2c,
lunamoth
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
lunamoth said:
The Body of Christ is tangible and objective, it is the Love of God manifest in the world. We manifest that love. Love does not divide and seperate, it unifies. If people who seek God leave it is because they have not found God's love manifest in whatever instrument/religion they have experienced.
That's true but should feelings alone really be the means thru which we decide?
lunamoth said:
The quality of Christ that is found within the 'walls' of the Church (Universal) is Love. If a member is 'ill' (sinning) should they be sent out into the world or should they be kept in the care of the Physician?

The Physician is always there. Whether you are in the Body of Christ or not. What keeps a person out is:
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Committing a mortal sin isn't as easy as one might think either:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#II
lunamoth said:
Yes, the Catholic Church has a right, an obligation, to say clearly what its doctrine is, and it is up to the members to accept this, or try to accept it. It is right of the priests and rest of the 'authority' of the church to educate their flock and to correct those who believe otherwise. Yet, it also then needs to use love to show why this doctrine has efficacy in growing closer to God. Just saying 'this is the way it is and if you don't accept it then you must leave' is going to result in, well, people leaving.
Oh I agree and I think some priest do better at this then others.
lunamoth said:
I think about this a lot, and I just don't know. Certainly there is suffering and sacrifice in following Christ. But Christ does not make us suffer, no I don't believe so. I think that when a teaching/doctrine is good and upheld in love, those who do not follow it create their own hell, or make their own distance from God. They can remain there or they can 'repent' (which does not mean to be really really sorry, but to actually change their ways and realign their will with God's) and return to God. I never liked that story about the shepherd who beats the sheep with his rod until the sheep's leg is broken and then can only rely upon God. No, I pretty much reject that charater for God. I think instead of the sheep who does not believe that the grass is good and so starves herself, or eats poisonous weeds instead. Once she is hungry and sick then she may again decide to trust her Master.
Take a read of this when you get a chance:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0702.asp
lunamoth said:
But, there are sheep dogs that nip. Maybe they are doing a service for the Lord as long as they don't instead end up hurting the flock by their good intentions. Justice is tricky. Mercy and compassion are safer bets.
I leave that to God.
lunamoth said:
An objective means? I think that is pretty much impossible.
Interesting. How else can God communicate with His objective creation then?
Maybe you misunderstood me here or I wasn't clear.

Peace,
~Victor
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Victor said:
That's true but should feelings alone really be the means thru which we decide?
Love is not emotion but compassionate action, charity, agape. It manifests as social justice, not just tender feelings. It is an attractive force. (I've discovered that not everyone understands my use of Love this way.)

The Physician is always there. Whether you are in the Body of Christ or not. What keeps a person out is:
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Committing a mortal sin isn't as easy as one might think either:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#II
Thank you for the link; I need to read up on this.

Oh I agree and I think some priest do better at this then others.
I'lls read this one too. :)

Interesting. How else can God communicate with His objective creation then?
Maybe you misunderstood me here or I wasn't clear.

Peace,
~Victor
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other here. Never mind I think it is getting off topic.

peace,
lunamoth
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Victor said:

That's a good article Victor. Thank you for the link. :) I like this part:

According to this 12th-century view, that is exactly what Jesus, the God-Man, accomplished by his suffering and death. It was actually later theologians and preachers who added to Anselm’s position by emphasizing blood and pain as the satisfaction that placated God’s anger. Many Catholics still grow up with such an understanding.

This image of God—angry, demanding, even bloodthirsty—often appears in sermons, songs and popular pieties today, although the focus is usually placed on Jesus’ willingness to bear the suffering. Many people are uneasy with this view of God, even if they do not know exactly why. This image of God is very different from the one expressed in the life and teachings of Jesus.

Jesus is not Plan B

There is an alternative interpretation of the life and death of Jesus, also expressed in the Scriptures and throughout the tradition. This view, perhaps only on the margins of many people’s religious understanding and devotion, is completely orthodox and is solidly rooted in the Christian tradition. Indeed, it offers perspectives much closer to Jesus’ own experience and vision.

What, briefly, is the heart of this alternative interpretation? It holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation, God’s sharing of life and love in a unique and definitive way. God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for Original Sin and human sinfulness. Incarnation is God’s first thought, the original design for all creation. The purpose of Jesus’ life is the fulfillment of the whole creative process, of God’s eternal longing to become human. Theologians call this the “primacy of the Incarnation.”

For many of us who have lived a lifetime with the atonement view, it may be hard at first to hear this alternative, “incarnational” view. Yet it may offer some wonderful surprises for our relationship with God. God is not an angry or vindictive God, demanding the suffering and death of Jesus as payment for past sin. God is, instead, a gracious God, sharing divine life and love in creation and in the Incarnation. Such a view can dramatically change our image of God, our approach to suffering, our day-to-day prayer. This approach finds its strongest scriptural expression in John’s Gospel and in the letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians.

Obviously within orthodox Catholcism there can be large shifts in how we view the character of God. Do you think this means that doctrine changes, or is there just a large misunderstanding of doctrine to begin with?

lunamoth
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
lunamoth said:
Hi Victor, Thank you for your interest in continuing this conversation.
And yours....:)
lunamoth said:
Can I sum from this that to be a sheep in God's fold means to one who listen's to His voice?
Ah...conditions. See, I knew we agreed. :D
lunamoth said:
There are also some who do not listen/believe, yet they are still destined by God to become part of His fold?
Now that I highly doubt. At least as it regards to listening. If someone refuses to listen, why should God make him/her part of his fold?
lunamoth said:
I think I said before that I have recently backed off from my 'radical universalism' in which I held that absolutely everyone is saved in the next life no matter what.
You did mention it luna, but it does appear to me that you are still holding on to this to some extent. Perhaps not intentionally, but it can certainly be taken that way.
lunamoth said:
I felt that this absolute stance was in effect taking something that is not mine, namely God's power to save whomever He wishes.
And that is true. But don't you think that it would be rather odd for Him to save men and women outside of his qualities? Not only odd, but flat out contradictory and it lessens what God is trying to do immensely in my eyes. If He can save whom ever he wants outside of his qualities why even bother with all this?
lunamoth said:
But I see no reason from the Bible, the Catechism or Doctrine why I must believe anyone actually ends up in separation from God in the next life regardless of what they do or believe, baptized or not, in this life.
You are right, you don't have to believe a single person will end up in hell. Catholic thinking agrees with you. But we do think we can observe people's objective acts and beliefs and know that if they continue, they may end up in seperation with God. But it's never with complete certainty when it comes to the afterlife.
lunamoth said:
I think there's another chance after death to accept God and it's impossible for me to imagine anyone turning this down, or perhaps at that judgement we see that God is and has been choosing us all along... Anyhow, this is all back story to explain where I am coming from.
I gotcha....although I do disagree with you that they will get one last chance in the afterlife. I think the Scriptures are rather clear that this life is your chance. Whomever rejects Him here, knows enough to reject Him after.
lunamoth said:
I don't understand what you mean by 'justifiable separation.' If for whatever reason a person no longer believes in God or believes that God is not found in any Christian church no matter what the reason then they certainly do feel justified in leaving it.
Oh I know they feel justfied. As I said, people can feel justified for all sorts of reasons. My point is that nothing justfies seperation from the Body of Christ in my opinion. The only thing that can justify is if the Church fails in what is promised.....doctrine/dogma. If that falls then I would certainly be devasted and would see no reason to hold to Christianity at all.
lunamoth said:
We are each responsible for our own choices. Are they justified (and that is a loaded term, no?) in the eyes of God. I would never hazard a guess. I think God is merciful and He has a full understanding of the things that drive people away from organized religion. Again, this gets to the heart of why I make a distinction between the Church and religion. The Church is the people; religion is a tool, or a vehicle. The Church is a metaphysical whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and it remains perfect in spite of our imperfections and infallibilites.
Distinction without a differece for me. Personally I just think the word "religion" has become like a cuss word for some. They don't like the sound of it and don't like using it. I just want to get the point across and could care less to quibble about words.
lunamoth said:
Now there is an interesting point. Can/does doctrine change?
Change to mean something else, I don't believe so. Develop, certainly...
lunamoth said:
I see it as a fluid process, not one in which anything goes or all is relative, but as I've said before that we are like sailboats in the wind. The wind is from God and it has power and direction, yet for us to make use of it we don't usually go straight into it but tack to the left and right, constantly adapting but always going in one overall direction.
I'm cool with this as long as the wind is doctrine/dogma and it's something that is objective. :)
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
Did christ Jesus found a Religion? My answer is simple: Yes he did. It was the Catholic Religion, history shows this well. Amen!
 
Top