Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Nevermind, changed dir for thread
Last edited:
-
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!
Nevermind,
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Actually this is perfect, as i want your perspective.
Thread is now in general christianity dir
Thread is now in general christianity dir
Last edited:
Grumpuss
Active Member
Okay, well in short, I believe in the Holy Trinity. The Father, first of the Trinity, created the universe. Jesus, the second, is His son, and lived ~2,000 years ago as the embodiment of a Nazaren Jew. He died on the cross for our sins, and thus saved all of mankind. The Holy Spirit is the third of the Trinity, and provides guidance and protection for man, including inspiring writing the Bible.
My religion isn't absolute beyond that. Other Christian sects believe in worshiping saints directly, venerating relics or combining Jesus's teachings with voodoo or other supernatural traditions. Some others reject the Trinity and instead focus solely upon Jesus. While I can pass judgment on some of those, I do not know for sure if my religion is the purest either- perhaps we aren't as directly relatable to the teachings of Christ as we could be. My belief in a perfect being is one thing, though I know I'm not perfect.
My religion isn't absolute beyond that. Other Christian sects believe in worshiping saints directly, venerating relics or combining Jesus's teachings with voodoo or other supernatural traditions. Some others reject the Trinity and instead focus solely upon Jesus. While I can pass judgment on some of those, I do not know for sure if my religion is the purest either- perhaps we aren't as directly relatable to the teachings of Christ as we could be. My belief in a perfect being is one thing, though I know I'm not perfect.
Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, the development of doctrine ought to be considered.
In the world of antiquity there was no direct possibility of expressing the 'relationality' of the triadic form of revelation together with the unity of the being of God, though these were two absolutely vital constituents of the biblical massage. In the last analysis, the early Councils are stages n the elaboration of a 'regula loquendi' in which these scriptural Contents could be expressed. By contrast, the early heresies are the resistance of human language and thought to those same Contents. Our situation is defined in part by the fact that this movement of dogmatic construction has already taken place, with ourselves as the gainers. Yet at the same time we are not exonerated from all further effort. Language has broadened its compass in the continuous explicative endeavours of the human spirit. Because of this, the presuppositions for the understanding of dogma are different now. And so we are obliged to penetrate anew, in language and concept, what the patristic dogmas truly signify. Had the main missionary drive of the Church been to the Indian sub-continent, rather than the Greco-Roman world, the articulation of the tri-personal nature of God would have happened quite differently. Yet it is only because the process of articulation has been conserved in the patristic dogmas that our own permanent task of comprehending anew is possible.
Joseph Ratzinger
John Henry Newman, an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, wrote on the 'development of doctrine'.
In the world of antiquity there was no direct possibility of expressing the 'relationality' of the triadic form of revelation together with the unity of the being of God, though these were two absolutely vital constituents of the biblical massage. In the last analysis, the early Councils are stages n the elaboration of a 'regula loquendi' in which these scriptural Contents could be expressed. By contrast, the early heresies are the resistance of human language and thought to those same Contents. Our situation is defined in part by the fact that this movement of dogmatic construction has already taken place, with ourselves as the gainers. Yet at the same time we are not exonerated from all further effort. Language has broadened its compass in the continuous explicative endeavours of the human spirit. Because of this, the presuppositions for the understanding of dogma are different now. And so we are obliged to penetrate anew, in language and concept, what the patristic dogmas truly signify. Had the main missionary drive of the Church been to the Indian sub-continent, rather than the Greco-Roman world, the articulation of the tri-personal nature of God would have happened quite differently. Yet it is only because the process of articulation has been conserved in the patristic dogmas that our own permanent task of comprehending anew is possible.
Joseph Ratzinger
John Henry Newman, an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, wrote on the 'development of doctrine'.