To any Christians

[Lacerda]

I have all the respect for you view @Borki

I hope you won't hold it against me that I didnt read your post thoroughly. All I can say is I nodded in agreement on a lot you had to say.

who am I to say, you, or anyone else, is wrong. for all I know I could go to hell for my opinion.

if I may be so bluntly though, my feeling when I read your post is, it's so many words. there is so much logic and intellectualism.

is that what god expects from us?

didnt jesus, on the contrary, during the sermon of the mount, bless those "poor in spirit"?

blessed are those, pure of heart

and so on.

where does he say, "blessed are those who follow the rules of the church"

or "blessed are those who accept the trinity"

or "blessed are those who follow the dogmas of the council of nicea, 200 years from now on"?

I'm just asking questions here, I'm not saying you're wrong or on the wrong path. I could be wrong.

it's true, the old testament "predicted" the coming of jesus.

but the actual "message", I would argue, is where the real meat lies.

I guess I'm just not a big "theologist" so to speak. Maybe I once was interested in that kind of stuff, but not anymore. I'm a little soul, of little understanding. or, "poor in spirit", as jesus desires. And so shall it be.

I've never felt closer to god, than when he directly spoke to me. I just "know", it's all ok. He told me, he's there for everyone who believes in him, and I'm free to tell everyone this. that's catholocism, in it's purest form. everyone is welcome. how much closer can you get, to the message of god / jesus.

books have been written about the theology. I've read "the basis" by origin for example. While it's great reading material, it doesnt really bring you an ounch closer to god.

Suppose, you "follow" the right dogma, the "right" way of your believe. I'm not convinced, that is something that will please god in any way.

Does god really care for such things? God is able to look right into your soul; he sees the good and the evil in there. We as humans can try to argue our way out of our sins, but without the help of god it's of no use.

Everyting is intellectual ballast. it confuses and deflects from what it important.

all in my opinion of course. but to anyone reading this: dont believe me, read the gospels.

 

[Borki]

I have all the respect for you view @Borki

I hope you won't hold it against me that I didnt read your post thoroughly. All I can say is I nodded in agreement on a lot you had to say.

I definitely dont hold it against you. (Same goes for this one)

if I may be so bluntly though, my feeling when I read your post is, it's so many words. there is so much logic and intellectualism.

is that what god expects from us?

Yes. God gave us logic and intellect as specific tools to know Him. They are part of what makes us a unique creation made in His image. Not everyone needs to be an expert on theology or Scripture. Different people have different gifts, as Paul says. And what Paul says - is important. Because ALL Scripture is inspired by Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit.

didnt jesus, on the contrary, during the sermon of the mount, bless those "poor in spirit"?

blessed are those, pure of heart

and so on.

Why are you under the impression that this is in any way contrary to having an intelligent and reasonable faith with a coherent epistemology? Again, you're quoting Scritpure and setting up false dichotomies where somehow knowing dogma is opposed to giving to the poor. But knowing proper dogma is HOW YOU KNOW to give to the poor. Blessed are the poor in spirit and pure of heart. Agreed 1000%. But how is that "contrary" to what I'm saying? I'm merely saying that Christ established a Church (that gives more to the poor than anyone, and changed the way humanity saw the poor as people with inherent dignity) and we should participate in it. Because this is what He wanted us to do. Just like He wanted us to give to the poor. Not one or the other. Both.

where does he say, "blessed are those who follow the rules of the church"

He quite literally established the Church and set some of those rules. And I referenced an example passage for you to read where He does this in my previous post (Matt 18:15-20). He speaks of the Church, sets up the Church and communicates with the Church in the Bible repeatedly. Also, why are we so focused on the words of Jesus at the exclusion of the rest of Scripture? Are you saying that the words of Jesus are the only real canonical scriptures? If so, on what basis do you come to that conclusion? (I'm not claiming that you are saying that. Im just asking IF thats what you think.)

What rules of the Church do you take such issue with, and why?

or "blessed are those who accept the trinity"

or "blessed are those who follow the dogmas of the council of nicea, 200 years from now on"?

He never says those exact words. Nor does He need to. Because we have more than just His words, and in taking the totality of Scripture, these are the natural conclusions we come to. Just like there is nothing from Jesus that says "blessed were you on Monday at 6:53 PM when you helped a grandma across the street" - but we can still know that helping a grandma across the street on a Monday is a good thing from Scripture and the Church and human reason.

I have never claimed that the Council of Nicea needs to be taken as infallible (though Im not actually opposed to it. I just dont know. I havent even picked a denomination yet. Im still discerning.) But I do think it is infallible in a secondary sort of sense (at the very least), because Scripture is infallible and the Council of Nicea accurately summarizes the core beliefs of Christianity from Scripture. That is generally the Protestant belief, as far as I know, and I'm fine with it. But yeah, I think if you reject the substance of the Council of Nicea, you're rejecting the Bible. Why does it matter that its 200 years later? The logic used to come to the conclusions of Nicea are much older than that, and its the same logic we use today. Why does it matter if its 1 day later or 2000 years later? What matters is if its true.

I'm just asking questions here, I'm not saying you're wrong or on the wrong path. I could be wrong.

it's true, the old testament "predicted" the coming of jesus.

but the actual "message", I would argue, is where the real meat lies.

But are you saying that that message isn't included at all in the Old Testament or any part of the Bible outside the red letter text of Jesus? I would say the entire thing IS the message, when understood properly in the context of the Church. E.g. I would say Isaiah 53 is the most succinct and beautiful explanation of the good news imo. The Gospels quote and reference the OT. Even the 2 "most important commandments" of Jesus - are not actually from Jesus. He is merely taking quotes from Torah. The whole thing is the message. The whole thing is interconnected. Scripture is a self referencing library of literature. Its ALL about Jesus. Cover to cover.

I guess I'm just not a big "theologist" so to speak. Maybe I once was interested in that kind of stuff, but not anymore. I'm a little soul, of little understanding. or, "poor in spirit", as jesus desires. And so shall it be.

Not everyone needs to be. That's fine. But if youre saying that Jesus desires us to not know theology, as if its some kind of virtue, I'd like an explanation as to why you think those verses mean that. The Church is a body where different people have different strengths. I'm not a theologian either. And the depths of my knowledge are....a fucking kiddy pool. But I dont need to have great knowledge. I only need to have great epistemology. And I do. Because its not mine.

I've never felt closer to god, than when he directly spoke to me. I just "know", it's all ok. He told me, he's there for everyone who believes in him, and I'm free to tell everyone this. that's catholocism, in it's purest form. everyone is welcome. how much closer can you get, to the message of god / jesus.

I will admit I've never heard the words of God directly. I've felt moved and convicted by the Holy Spirit. I've felt close to God through prayer. But no audible voice or direct profound communication. But I believe that does happen. Different people have different "gifts of the Spirit" as Scripture says. And youre very blessed to have experienced that. But it also says that those gifts are for building up the Church. And I think that experiencing something like that, is all the more reason why the guidance of the Church becomes even more neccessary. NOT a reason to retreat into a personal church of one where youre your own priest. As you said, everyone is welcome. And what they're welcome to is BOTH a personal relationship with God AND His covenant community. The Bible tells us to test our supernatural experiences against objective standards, and the Church was Christs way of providing those standards.

Suppose, you "follow" the right dogma, the "right" way of your believe. I'm not convinced, that is something that will please god in any way.

You have actually argued multiple times for why its so important to follow the right dogma. You just dont call it "following dogma" because you dont like to call things like knowing to help the poor "following dogma" - but it is. You used your intellect and logic and advocated orthodox dogma. Its not a bad thing. It's how we obey God and His Church.

Does god really care for such things? God is able to look right into your soul; he sees the good and the evil in there. We as humans can try to argue our way out of our sins, but without the help of god it's of no use.

Why are you under the impression that following dogma means you're trying to argue your way out of sins? That would be going AGAINST dogma. You literally just utilized proper theology and dogma again to come to the conclusion that you cant argue your way out of your sins. And you're correct. Only the blood of Jesus can wash away our sins. That is correct dogma and orthodox theology, and obedience to the Church of Jesus Christ. You have a negative association with the word dogma, so you view it as a bad thing. But you actually do care about following it (at least to an extent).

all in my opinion of course. but to anyone reading this: dont believe me, read the gospels

And not just the Gospels. Read the entirety of the Bible under the guidance of Church tradition and authority, within its proper context.

But even if you merely read the Gospels, its very clear from them alone, that Jesus established a covenant community and gave them His Spirit and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against us. And thats why we have the Gospels to begin with. I get where you're coming from (and I've shared your view in the past) and I admire the way you revere the Gospel. But I disagree that the Church somehow dilutes it. The Church is in it! The Church wrote it!

 

[Lacerda]

I definitely dont hold it against you. (Same goes for this one)



Yes. God gave us logic and intellect as specific tools to know Him. They are part of what makes us a unique creation made in His image. Not everyone needs to be an expert on theology or Scripture. Different people have different gifts, as Paul says. And what Paul says - is important. Because ALL Scripture is inspired by Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit.



Why are you under the impression that this is in any way contrary to having an intelligent and reasonable faith with a coherent epistemology? Again, you're quoting Scritpure and setting up false dichotomies where somehow knowing dogma is opposed to giving to the poor. But knowing proper dogma is HOW YOU KNOW to give to the poor. Blessed are the poor in spirit and pure of heart. Agreed 1000%. But how is that "contrary" to what I'm saying? I'm merely saying that Christ established a Church (that gives more to the poor than anyone, and changed the way humanity saw the poor as people with inherent dignity) and we should participate in it. Because this is what He wanted us to do. Just like He wanted us to give to the poor. Not one or the other. Both.



He quite literally established the Church and set some of those rules. And I referenced an example passage for you to read where He does this in my previous post (Matt 18:15-20). He speaks of the Church, sets up the Church and communicates with the Church in the Bible repeatedly. Also, why are we so focused on the words of Jesus at the exclusion of the rest of Scripture? Are you saying that the words of Jesus are the only real canonical scriptures? If so, on what basis do you come to that conclusion? (I'm not claiming that you are saying that. Im just asking IF thats what you think.)

What rules of the Church do you take such issue with, and why?



He never says those exact words. Nor does He need to. Because we have more than just His words, and in taking the totality of Scripture, these are the natural conclusions we come to. Just like there is nothing from Jesus that says "blessed were you on Monday at 6:53 PM when you helped a grandma across the street" - but we can still know that helping a grandma across the street on a Monday is a good thing from Scripture and the Church and human reason.

I have never claimed that the Council of Nicea needs to be taken as infallible (though Im not actually opposed to it. I just dont know. I havent even picked a denomination yet. Im still discerning.) But I do think it is infallible in a secondary sort of sense (at the very least), because Scripture is infallible and the Council of Nicea accurately summarizes the core beliefs of Christianity from Scripture. That is generally the Protestant belief, as far as I know, and I'm fine with it. But yeah, I think if you reject the substance of the Council of Nicea, you're rejecting the Bible. Why does it matter that its 200 years later? The logic used to come to the conclusions of Nicea are much older than that, and its the same logic we use today. Why does it matter if its 1 day later or 2000 years later? What matters is if its true.



But are you saying that that message isn't included at all in the Old Testament or any part of the Bible outside the red letter text of Jesus? I would say the entire thing IS the message, when understood properly in the context of the Church. E.g. I would say Isaiah 53 is the most succinct and beautiful explanation of the good news imo. The Gospels quote and reference the OT. Even the 2 "most important commandments" of Jesus - are not actually from Jesus. He is merely taking quotes from Torah. The whole thing is the message. The whole thing is interconnected. Scripture is a self referencing library of literature. Its ALL about Jesus. Cover to cover.



Not everyone needs to be. That's fine. But if youre saying that Jesus desires us to not know theology, as if its some kind of virtue, I'd like an explanation as to why you think those verses mean that. The Church is a body where different people have different strengths. I'm not a theologian either. And the depths of my knowledge are....a fucking kiddy pool. But I dont need to have great knowledge. I only need to have great epistemology. And I do. Because its not mine.



I will admit I've never heard the words of God directly. I've felt moved and convicted by the Holy Spirit. I've felt close to God through prayer. But no audible voice or direct profound communication. But I believe that does happen. Different people have different "gifts of the Spirit" as Scripture says. And youre very blessed to have experienced that. But it also says that those gifts are for building up the Church. And I think that experiencing something like that, is all the more reason why the guidance of the Church becomes even more neccessary. NOT a reason to retreat into a personal church of one where youre your own priest. As you said, everyone is welcome. And what they're welcome to is BOTH a personal relationship with God AND His covenant community. The Bible tells us to test our supernatural experiences against objective standards, and the Church was Christs way of providing those standards.



You have actually argued multiple times for why its so important to follow the right dogma. You just dont call it "following dogma" because you dont like to call things like knowing to help the poor "following dogma" - but it is. You used your intellect and logic and advocated orthodox dogma. Its not a bad thing. It's how we obey God and His Church.



Why are you under the impression that following dogma means you're trying to argue your way out of sins? That would be going AGAINST dogma. You literally just utilized proper theology and dogma again to come to the conclusion that you cant argue your way out of your sins. And you're correct. Only the blood of Jesus can wash away our sins. That is correct dogma and orthodox theology, and obedience to the Church of Jesus Christ. You have a negative association with the word dogma, so you view it as a bad thing. But you actually do care about following it (at least to an extent).



And not just the Gospels. Read the entirety of the Bible under the guidance of Church tradition and authority, within its proper context.

But even if you merely read the Gospels, its very clear from them alone, that Jesus established a covenant community and gave them His Spirit and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against us. And thats why we have the Gospels to begin with. I get where you're coming from (and I've shared your view in the past) and I admire the way you revere the Gospel. But I disagree that the Church somehow dilutes it. The Church is in it! The Church wrote it!

I agree 100% that jesus established a "church", when he sent out the apostles, and he asked us to share the cup to remember him.

jesus also gave us the task, to love our neighbour, to forgive your enemy, etc.

when we say,, jesus established the church, that's what is actually written in the gospel.

I disagree though, that a "right", or even "fixed" set of rules is part of the "package" so to speak.

even in the bible, the rules changed when the circumstances changed. the old mosaic hygienic laws were not to be followed anymore by the gentiles (said paul).

it's logical that the rules can change. A fixed set of rules would mean, god is confounded within those rules. but god is omnipotent; only he knows the rules (I would like the make the comparison with plato's discourse on "ideals")

secondly, I always try to imagine, how was it during the time, when jesus did his sermon on the mount. I try to imagine, I'm there in the crowd. there in that moment, what else is of importance than the words that come directly from jesus? all the rest is irrelevant, I would argue. you won't need your bible anymore, when jesus himself is talking to you, there in front of the crowd.

 

[Borki]

I agree 100% that jesus established a "church", when he sent out the apostles, and he asked us to share the cup to remember him.

jesus also gave us the task, to love our neighbour, to forgive your enemy, etc.

when we say,, jesus established the church, that's what is actually written in the gospel.

I disagree though, that a "right", or even "fixed" set of rules is part of the "package" so to speak.

even in the bible, the rules changed when the circumstances changed. the old mosaic hygienic laws were not to be followed anymore by the gentiles (said paul).

The Old Mosaic hygienic laws didn't need to be followed anymore even by Jewish Christians. Not just the Gentile ones. Because the Old Covenant had been replaced with a New Covenant. And the New Covenant was made with the Church/Christians. (Those rules also never applied to Gentiles at all.) Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant. We dont have any new covenants since then.

Love your neighbor is a rule. Love your God is a rule. Are those right or wrong? How do you determine what is and isnt important to follow today? Why even love your neighbor? Whats the epistemological basis for what you consider important and what you consider irrelevant today?

it's logical that the rules can change. A fixed set of rules would mean, god is confounded within those rules. but god is omnipotent; only he knows the rules (I would like the make the comparison with plato's discourse on "ideals")

Well, it depends what you mean by rules. Even today we dont take everything in the Bible, even in the NT - in the most black and white possible direct interpretation always. E.g. When Paul says a man shouldnt have long hair, we generally view this under the lense of the context, culture, time and core principles rather than a binding command for all Christians across all time. But the difference here is on who has the ultimate authority to make these determinations. Is it us by ourselves deciding what to follow/ignore? Or is it the Church?

Why would it mean that God is confounded with rules? It would mean that WE are confounded with rules. And we are. (And God actually does have things He can't do because it goes against His nature.) If there are no binding rules at all then sin doesnt exist and we dont need Jesus. There are rules, and we broke them, and God died for it. To sin is to fall short of God's moral "rules" for us. The civil and ceremonial rules were for the Old Covenant. But moral law is universal.

The Bible says to listen to religious leaders, follow the traditions passed down to you, dont merely trust your gut, take rebuke/correction/wisdom from your leaders, confess your sins to each other, meet in person for worship, etc. It says there are ways that seem right to us that can lead us off a cliff. Not a single word of it says anything about defining the faith for yourself in your church of one because you dont like the rules in the Church of God.

In fact, there is not a single time in the Bible ever (as far as I know) where anyone is ever encouraged to leave the Church (either the Israel Church or the Christian Church) - even when the leaders are in full blown sin and its all going to hell. Which was....quite a lot. The entire Old Testament is the story of Israels religious and civil leaders failing horribly. But God never tells people to exit communion with his nation and their visible institution of worship (instead he promises that his divine institution will rule the world, which is fulfilled in the Church, and will be fully fullfilled at the end of time). Not even when the nation is being run by evil kings, false prophets and corrupt priests who become full blown Satanic pagans who sacrafice their own children to Moloch, charge money for fake prophetic visions, abuse the poor, start wars, etc. Instead, God corrects His Church, by sending prophets, enacting judgement, sending them into exile, and ultimately - sending the Christ. The Church is a force for good, and even when her members (including leaders) sin, she always course corrects. And that sin highlights our need for Christ. It only makes His grace shine brighter.

In the New Testament, people are misled by poor teachings repeatedly. But does God ever tell them to leave the Church? No. Instead, the Church self corrects, guided by the Holy Spirit. When some Jews teach Gentile converts that circumcision is a neccessary rule - the Council of Jerusalem convenes and corrects the error. In his Epistles, Paul frequently addresses members of the church in error and sin. But never says to abandon the institutional Church. In the traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the error of human leaders is sort of a baked in expectation. But they weather the storm, and hold fast to the sacraments. Because even if a priest literally goes on a killing spree at an orphanage and then sneaks back to mass and consecrates the eucharist - that is still a valid sacrament. Because the redemptive power of the blood of Jesus and the mysteries of God are the point. The priest is a typology of Jesus. NOT Jesus. The eucharist is Jesus. The NT literally tells us we will be infiltrated by false teachers and wolves that decieve the flock. And yet, it doesnt tell us to leave the Church even then! Quite the opposite. It tells us to hold fast to orthodoxy. To cling to the Church and her traditions even tighter. Sacred tradition acts as a natural course corrector. If a religious leader is commanding something that goes against Christian ethics - Scripture, the magisterium, tradition and the congregation are natural barriers to the abuse that guarentee it cant ultimately win.

The entire book of 1 Corinthians is a rebuke from Paul to the Corinth church telling them how much they suck. Disorder, bad behavior, incest, people suing each other, divisive arguments, poor stewardship of the eucharist and toxic leadership. Did he tell them to leave the church and follow themselves? Nope. He told them to get their act together. Thats what 1 Corinthians is. A letter of rebuke. And scholars think it actually got worse from there. He visited them in person and was horrified. And then he wrote another letter that wasnt preserved by history inbetween 1 and 2 Corinthians where he called them out even more. But still, he never gave up. 2 Corinthians is a celebration of their restoration. The Church weathers the storm. Jonah was basically just a massive asshole. His entire book is the story of how he tried to run away from his duties as a prophet cuz he hated the pagans God wanted him to prohesy to. Yet, God's purpose was fulfilled regardless, in spite of Jonah's sin. Because God's purpose is bigger than the broken sinful vessels of individuals. Israel brought us the Messiah. The Church will prepare the world for His return.

In Revelation, Jesus Christ Himself speaks to several churches through John and rebukes some of them. He even says the church in Thyatira is listening to a false prophetess. But He doesnt say "pack it up boys. Just go home and follow your heart". He says - get your act together. I think all Christian denominations would admit they have been wrong about some things at some points. But there are tiers of "rules" anyways. They're not all binding in the same way. They're not all infallible. They're not all dogmatic. (Also, I sort of misused the word dogma a bit in my prior post btw).

secondly, I always try to imagine, how was it during the time, when jesus did his sermon on the mount. I try to imagine, I'm there in the crowd. there in that moment, what else is of importance than the words that come directly from jesus? all the rest is irrelevant, I would argue. you won't need your bible anymore, when jesus himself is talking to you, there in front of the crowd.

Jesus referenced the Bible constantly, and spoke to people who were well versed in it, under the assumption they already knew it. So even then, people absolutely often needed their Bible to understand Him fully. He thought it mattered. He taught how He fulfilled the Scriptures to the apostles (Luke 24:27). Many of the Early Christians were illiterate. The Church was a massive reason behind the rise in literacy among people who weren't elites, but before that - most people couldn't read. And they didn't need to. Because they had a community, and a liturgy read out loud, and sacred tradition, and a priest and deacons - they had the Church.

 

[Lacerda]

If there are no binding rules at all then sin doesnt exist and we dont need Jesus

"love" is hard to define in a set of rules. if rules are everything, then definitions need to be made. definitions are the foundation of any set of rules

love is the most important rule, but its impossible to define

but i understand what you mean.

i agree there is a divine law, but its not formal law. its not comparable with , say, the constition which is formal law

its comparable with what legalist refer to as, the nature law, its written nowhere but people still need to adhere to it. it can change over time. the consensus on what is or what isnt law of nature, coul in theory change day by day.

so our argument isnt really an argument. were both referring to the same coin, but each to a different side

im not going to dispute your argument. its good that people want to belong to communities. just not me, but i think jesus does not hold that against me