Does religion offend you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Darn.  <kicking dirt>

[Achronos]

Other than this word-salad, what support have you?  Bald claims bereft of evidence do not support make.

Is this in reference to the 'soul'? If so I would be happy to explain.

You dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Ugh, one step forward, two steps back.

Let's examine what I said:

As I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

I  have already established not only in this thread but in the "Challenge for Christians" thread, but I will touch a little bit on this again. Christ was both man and God and he inaugurated a new life not a new religion, by abolishing the previous dichotomies, e.g., between "natural" and "supernatural", "sacred" and "profane" or "spiritual" and "material", which were the only justification and raison d'etre of religion. Christ himself was the answer to ALL religion, to all human hunger for God. Christian worship in general is the end of cult, of the "sacred" religious act isolated from, and opposed to, the "profane" life of the community. Religion is only a fragment of human life, not its wholeness. This is the reason why pagans in the first centuries had accused Christians of atheism, namely because the latter had no concern for any sacred geography, no temples and no cult in the traditional sense; they had essentially deviated from the predominant stereotypes of relgion.

So to answer your question simply, no Paul did not start a 'religion'.

JAgain, this fallacy is present.  My point is this:  you realize that many of them say that you are not a true Christian.  From where I stand, you're both right.  

I don't think others reject that I am a true Christian, but with the fragmentation in the faith there has to be a separation of what is true and what I will simply call half-truth. What I mean by half-truth is somehow there are Christians who think they can get around the actual crucifixion of Christ by just living a good Christian life; but it all starts at the Cross. Christianity itself is very simple at its core, Jesus Christ is the only way to have life with the Father again (Also considering both are one and the same); the sin that Adam caused has been reversed and death has been conquered. Jesus payed the ransom, and now we can have eternal life because of Him.

Forget all the dogmas, forget all the theological disputes within the faith, and see it for what it is. And now look at the protestants tripping over themselves because they themselves scrutinize the Bible so much it causes such problems with outsiders in the faith and they have to continually build new modern arguments to fight off anything new society throws at it. Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

[Fininho]

Religion is circular thinking.
Religion is a man thinking with another man's brain.
It is insulting, because you have your own brain to make normal use of it.
Religion attacks your brain to destroy it: then you have to use that of a "spiritual tutor".
Religion was to be an inoffensive pastime between meals if nobody got hurt.

[Inevitable Droid]

Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Agreed.  Orthodoxy is likewise very circular: "I know Church doctrine is true because the Church tells me so"; that is equally ridiculous.  Empiricism and logic are the only paths to knowledge, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses.

[Achronos]

Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Agreed.  Orthodoxy is likewise very circular: "I know Church doctrine is true because the Church tells me so"; that is equally ridiculous.  Empiricism and logic are the only paths to knowledge, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses.

Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born. The Apostles, it is true, had been historic witnesses to Christ's messianic ministry and resurrection before the Spirit of God descended on them. Still, it was with this event that they felt authorized to preach the Gospel to the world. Only then were they able to fully understand the mystery of Easter, that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and begin their mission. The expansion of the early Christian movement, however, was not without problems, nor was it spontaneous. Persecution and martyrdom awaited most of its initial members. The aggressive new missionary community, nevertheless, was destined to survive and grow in numbers. By the third century it had become a "mass phenomenon." Though unevenly scattered, it constituted possibly as much as ten percent of the total population of the Roman Empire. As such, it was sufficiently strong to compel the Roman emperors to end the persecutions. The Church, arguably, could no longer be ignored - numerically or ideologically; hence the legal recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century (312), and its subsequent recognition as the official religion of the empire by the end, under Theodosius (392).

The causes of this success are understandably complex. The disciplined close-knit structure of the Church, its social solidarity and internal cohesion, its care for the poor and the deprived did not go unnoticed. Both the hostile critic and the ordinary pagan observer were aware of these advantages. Furthermore, the persecution and martyrdom of Christians - despite the streak of cruelty in some who observed these punishments - could not but raise doubts and questions for many individuals. Nor did Christianity's message of equality before God fail to make its impression on the stratified urban population of the ancient world. Finally, Christianity's exclusiveness, the intimate sense of belonging, as well as its universality attracted new adherents. Ultimately and at a deeper level, however, it was the saving message of the Gospel that was the principal cause of Christian expansion. This message promised not only reconciliation and forgiveness of sin, but liberation from the bondage of death and corruption. "Christians were Christians," as one scholar has put it, "only because Christianity brought to them liberation from death." Above all, through Christ's own resurrection, man's own incorruptibility, his own future physical resurrection and deification was assured. To be in Christ, as St. Paul says, is to be a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is to the simple appeal of the primitive proclamation of the Gospel, in sum, that we must turn for the more probable cause of Christian expansion.

In a very real sense, the first four centuries of the Christian era were among the most creative. The Christian victory was undeniably revolutionary both for the Roman Empire and the European civilization that followed. From the perspective of the Church itself the period was even more significant. It is then that the Church achieved a certain self-identity, even self-awareness, which has since remained normative for Orthodoxy. Two developments which affected its self-understanding -- one institutional and the other doctrinal -- will suffice to illustrate this truism. The Church was initially without a New Testament. "Scripture" invariably simply meant the Old Testament. Increasingly, however, the Church saw the need to bring together all the writings of apostolic origin or inspiration into a single canon. This collection of twenty-seven books still constitutes the total apostolic witness for the Church and is identical with our present New Testament. In sum, one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity during this period was its transformation, to borrow Harnack's phrase, into a religion of two Testaments. These writings, it is worth pointing out, were received and acknowledged by the community of the Church because they coincided with its own Tradition and the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling in its midst since Pentecost. Strictly speaking, Christians lived solely by this Tradition decades before the content of the New Testament was determined. In the circumstances, Scripture in the Orthodox Church is routinely interpreted within the context of Tradition. As Father Georges Florovsky famously argued, it is within this larger setting of the Church's living memory (Tradition) that Scripture discloses its authentic message.

Equally crucial for the life of the Church was the formation of its administrative structure. As a rule, the ministry of the Apostles was itinerant, not stationary. After founding a community the Apostles would depart for another mission, leaving behind others to administer the new congregation and preside over the Eucharist and Baptism. In effect, a local hierarchy developed whose functions were stationary, administrative, and sacramental in contrast with the mobile authority of the Apostles. The presiding officer of each community, especially at each Sunday eucharistic meal, was the episcopos, or bishop, who was assisted by priests and deacons. By the early second century, this settled system with its threefold pattern of bishop, priest, deacon was already in place in many areas. There was nothing unusual in this development. After all, the Last Supper -- the first liturgy -- could not have taken place without the Lord's presiding presence. Indeed, from the beginning, the existence of a presiding head was taken for granted by the Church. This establishment of a local "monarchical" episcopate is still at the very center of Orthodox ecclesiology.

If the early fourth century marks the end of the period of persecutions and the Church's formative age, it also marks the dawn of the medieval period. With the fourth century we are standing on the threshold of a new civilization -- the Christian empire of medieval Byzantium. Clearly, Constantine's recognition of Christianity was decisive. Equally momentous doubtless was his decision to transfer the imperial residence -- the center of Roman government -- to Constantinople in 330. The importance of this event in the history of Eastern Christianity can hardly be exaggerated. This capital situated in the old Greek city of Byzantium, soon became the focus of the new emerging Orthodox civilization. Historical opinion remains divided on the question of Byzantium's contribution to civilization. Still, its lasting legacy lies arguably in the area of religion and art; it is these which give Byzantine culture much of its unity and cohesion. The new cultural synthesis that developed was at any rate clearly Christian, dominated by the Christian vision of life, rather than the pagan. We need only turn to Justinian's (532) "Great Church" of the Holy Wisdom -- the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople -- to understand this. But if Constantinople, the "New Rome" became the setting for this new civilization, it also became the unrivaled center of Orthodox Christianity. It is during this pivotal period in the history of the Church that the city's bishop assumed the title of "ecumenical patriarch."

The Byzantine Empire was characterized by a remarkable endurance: it survived for over a millennium until its fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. We will therefore limit ourselves to an outline of this age, to the events and developments which exercised the greatest influence on the life of the Church. The seven ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are of particular importance. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the persons of Christ, the incarnation. The mystery of the divine reality was evidently not exhausted by these verbal definitions. All the same, they constitute an authoritative norm against which all subsequent speculative theology is measured. Their decisions remain binding for the whole Church; non-acceptance constitutes exclusion from the communion of the Church. This explains the separation from the body of the Church of such groups as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. Ultimately, acceptance of these councils by the entire community of the Church is what gave them validity and authority. By and large, however, their reception was also due to the great theologians of the age; their literary defense of the theology of these councils was decisive. As we should expect, the writings of such Fathers and saints as Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, still constitute an inexhaustible theological source for the contemporary Orthodox Christian.

But the seven ecumenical councils are significant for another reason. The visible threefold ministerial structure of the Church was already a reality in many communities by the post-apostolic period, as we have had occasion to observe. Each of these self-contained local churches, with its own independent hierarchical structure, was a self-governing unit. However, precise standards governing the relations of these churches with each other had not been defined. Still, a certain "power structure" modeled in the main upon the organization of the Roman Empire eventually emerged; even before the fourth century a provincial system had developed in which churches were grouped in provinces. In such cases it was customary to give greater honor to the "metropolitan" or bishop of the capital city (metropolis) of each province. Similarly, given the importance of certain cities in the Roman administration, special precedence was accorded the presiding bishop of the three largest cities in the empire: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. All the same, such developments in which a church was ranked according to its civil importance in the administrative divisions of the Roman state, had evolved by common consensus without any ecclesiastical legislation to support it. This problem was eventually addressed by the ecumenical councils. For example, the Fathers of the first council (325) formally recognized the status of the three dioceses of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. With the emergence of Constantinople as the new capital of the empire, this patriarchal system was further modified. After all, the change wrought in the civil administration by Constantinople's new status could not but affect ecclesiastical structure. A rearrangement of the existing pattern was obviously necessary. At the council of 381, Constantinople, as the "New Rome," was accordingly given second place after the old Rome, while Alexandria was assigned third place. This legislation received further confirmation at the fourth council of Chalcedon (451), when Constantinople, along with Jerusalem, was granted patriarchal status.

Orthodoxy believes that it possesses both the unity and the faith which alone will produce the reunion all Christians seek. It is also at the same time fully aware of the scandal of Christian division. These simple facts explain the active role it has played since the 1920s in the ecumenical movement and in the later World Council of Churches founded in Amsterdam in 1948. From the movement's very inception it was the ecumenical Patriarchate that took the initiative and leadership by supporting a policy of full participation. Before long, numerous other Orthodox jurisdictions followed suit, thanks to the encouragement of Constantinople.

Not all Orthodox, it is true, are of one mind about this policy. Some, understandably, believe that the Orthodox idea of the Church is incompatible with the confessional ecclesiology that often dominates the World Council. Doubtless the Protestant notion that the historic aggregation of separated churches are separations in the Church itself is unacceptable to the Orthodox. As one distinguished Orthodox theologian notes, this line of Protestant reasoning negates all that the Orthodox hold about the unity and sacramental fullness of the Church. For all that, the Church has chosen to participate in the ecumenical movement because of the command to love all humanity whether divided or not. Besides, participation does not imply equality with our Protestant brethren, or compromise on our part. On the contrary, we are there as members for dialogue and to bear witness to the only common ground on which all genuine Christian unity must be founded. As the Orthodox statement at the Evanston Assembly of 1954 states, it is to "the faith of the ancient, united and indivisible Church of the seven ecumenical councils, namely, to the pure and unchanged and common heritage of the forefathers of all divided Christians" that we bear witness. The late Georges Florovsky never ceased stressing that the search for Christian unity is a "noble and blessed endeavor."

[Inevitable Droid]

Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born.

Or so the Church has told you.  You deem Church doctrine to be true, and your only basis for that, is that the Church tells you so.  You have given the Church final authority over your mind.

[Achronos]

Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born.

Or so the Church has told you.  You deem Church doctrine to be true, and your only basis for that, is that the Church tells you so.  You have given the Church final authority over your mind.

Well there has to be some trust that must be placed into those that did witness Christ and his Resurrection. Then the gospel was spread and the church founded.

Since the original church was founded, it had to form councils to dispell the heretics of its day and have theological concepts as concrete fact in regards to the Church (For example there was disputes amongst the follows of Arius on Christ's actual nature, hence why Constantine formed the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicea and invited ALL bishops to attend to discuss and sign a creed so the church can have something to base itself on).

I joined the orthodox church because I agreed 100% with it's theology first and foremost. Had it slightly altered, like the Catholics did with their 'filoque' clause, I would not be in an orthodox church.

So what the Church has told me I also agree it to be true based upon the theology and history of the Church. But also please keep the distinction that I am not worshiping a 'Church' sort of speak but worshiping Christ

[SomewhereInND]

Well there has to be some trust that must be placed into those that did witness Christ and his Resurrection. Then the gospel was spread and the church founded.

I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

How is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

Should we also  place the same trust in those that did witness the founding of mormanism?

You need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

Funny how that didn't make it into the "Roman Times" newspaper.

[Achronos]

I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

But all of those people will come to the conclusion that two airplanes crashed into the WTC and those two buildings themselves collapsed. The theories on who actually plotted them, are just theories. We know the truth because we have witnessed the event.

How is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

This is where we get into a debate over Mormonism vs Christianity, and how Mormonism goes against the very doctrine of Scripture eventhough they themselves consider themselves as Christians. Joseph Smith's claims of his 'revelation' from God are easily refuted doctrinally.

You need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

There are quite a number of eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb who were not believers in Christ. Heck St. Thomas himself did not believe the resurrection until he saw it for himself, and when Jesus made himself present to Thomas he believed it.

[SomewhereInND]

I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

1. But all of those people will come to the conclusion that two airplanes crashed into the WTC and those two buildings themselves collapsed. The theories on who actually plotted them, are just theories. We know the truth because we have witnessed the event.

How is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

2. This is where we get into a debate over Mormonism vs Christianity, and how Mormonism goes against the very doctrine of Scripture eventhough they themselves consider themselves as Christians. Joseph Smith's claims of his 'revelation' from God are easily refuted doctrinally.

You need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

3. There are quite a number of eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb who were not believers in Christ. Heck St. Thomas himself did not believe the resurrection until he saw it for himself, and when Jesus made himself present to Thomas he believed it.

I inserted 1-3 above to reference the following
1. There are other theries, but we know they are false, because most ofthem are just silly.
2. So christian witnesses are more reliable then morman witnesses.  I am not talking about the validity of mormanism, I am talking about the reliability of witnesses.
3. Did St. Thomas witness the resurection, or did he see an empty tomb?  Maybe it could have been hungry rats, but that would be silly.  How about his disciples bribing the guards, and taking his very dead body?  Are there any other examples in history of followers taking the body of their fallen leader?

[Achronos]

I inserted 1-3 above to reference the following
1. There are other theries, but we know they are false, because most ofthem are just silly.

Depends on what you mean by 'silly', perhaps to you they don't sound 'reasonable' enough right?

2. So christian witnesses are more reliable then morman witnesses.  I am not talking about the validity of mormanism, I am talking about the reliability of witnesses.

There was only one witness in Mormonism if I'm not mistaken, and that was Joseph Smith, who's very credibility should be doubted. Now Jesus Christ, who is both human and God, had plenty of people witness him. Some rejected him as the messiah as he lived, even Jews wouldn't accept him as the Messiah because it would break their tradition and sometimes those Pharisees were only in the tradition because of wealth (Jesus pointed out their hypocrisies) and power. Eventhough there were witnesses doesn't mean there weren't people who didn't believe he was the son of God.

Remember those that worship Jesus are worshipping God; people who are in Mormonism must accept that JS was a prophet which goes against the Bible itself. Nothing more needed to be revealed once Christ came, he was the redeemer of man and nothing more needed to be added or taken away.

3. Did St. Thomas witness the resurection, or did he see an empty tomb?  Maybe it could have been hungry rats, but that would be silly.  How about his disciples bribing the guards, and taking his very dead body?  Are there any other examples in history of followers taking the body of their fallen leader?

Yes when Jesus resurrected, he appeared himself to Thomas. Hence the popular phrase "Doubting Thomas".

Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb (Matthew 27:62) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced. If the Jews had the body, they would have wheeled it in at the day of Pentecost when all Jerusalem was in an uproar because of Peter's sermon on the Resurrection of Christ.

Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11. That story would only have served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake. Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception? It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection. The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts. The other Apostles too, overcame fear to brave suffering, imprisonment, and even death, as they proclaimed the good news of the risen Christ across their world. Is it thinkable that these people would die so willingly for a mere myth?

The explosive growth of the Church is strong evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Significantly, it wasn't the powerful, but commoners, burdened with every cultural strike against them (1 Corinthians 1:26), whose Resurrection message peaceably transformed the Roman Empire. Who would ever have predicted such an “impossible” feat? Yet it actually did happen.

[SomewhereInND]

This debate is getting silly, its just a story, I am going to chuckle and move on.

[Achronos]

I as well.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is this in reference to the 'soul'? If so I would be happy to explain.

Explain this:

And yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible.

How, exactly, is intellect not reliant on the brain?  Surely you know of the case of Phineas Gage.  Surely you're aware that damage to particular parts of the brain results in particular forms of disability.  Thus, when you say "the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ", you are either being disingenuous, or ignorant.  Consciousness (and thus intellect) is dependant on a functioning brain.  How many dead physicists have discovered new laws?  (Protip: none).

Ugh, one step forward, two steps back.

<buncha repetition snipped>

So to answer your question simply, no Paul did not start a 'religion'.

Really, now?  Why, then, is he a saint?  Why, exactly, he write his letters (which, by the way, are canonical), if not to tell others about this "deity" and how to honor him?

I don't think others reject that I am a true Christian, but with the fragmentation in the faith there has to be a separation of what is true and what I will simply call half-truth.

I wasn't asking your opinion.  I was pointing out a fact.

What I mean by half-truth is somehow there are Christians who think they can get around the actual crucifixion of Christ by just living a good Christian life; but it all starts at the Cross. Christianity itself is very simple at its core, Jesus Christ is the only way to have life with the Father again (Also considering both are one and the same); the sin that Adam caused has been reversed and death has been conquered. Jesus payed the ransom, and now we can have eternal life because of Him.

... yet there are other Christians who believe that there is such a thing as original sin.  No doubt you'll say that they're wrong.  Also, I have no doubt that they say you are wrong.  

How is it that the message of such a perfect god can be so muddled?  Why must he rely on such fallible human messengers?

Forget all the dogmas, forget all the theological disputes within the faith, and see it for what it is.

I think I beat you to the punch there, partner.  Quite simply: it's bullshit.  You'll get there too.

And now look at the protestants tripping over themselves because they themselves scrutinize the Bible so much it causes such problems with outsiders in the faith and they have to continually build new modern arguments to fight off anything new society throws at it. Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Protestantism, like your faith, is wrong, I agree.  Your faith, however, is biblical, and you're doing no honor to it by denying such a thing.

Is that a cock I hear crowing?

[Inevitable Droid]

More along the lines 'shroedingers view of reality doesn't effect the cat'

I came back to this thread specifically looking for your prior post about reason, because I wanted to reply to it, saying, I think I know what you were getting at!  I somehow had missed this later post that I'm now replying to.

Here is what I was going to say.  I'll pretend I'm quoting it from the same reality Schroedinger's cat resides in when he's still in the box!

Logic by itself, is unreasonable.  Something along the lines, statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics

I agree - so long as the subject of inquiry is the natural world.  If we're discussing algebra, logic suffices.

everyone (christians/athiests) use logic without reason.

I agree - so long as the subject of inquiry is the natural world, and logic is being employed without the discipline of empiricism.