blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
I do follow Paul's teachings. I believe that, as it says in the Bible, that he was chosen to lead the Church in that manner. As a Christian, I celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. I also do contribute significantly to charity, both inside and outside the Church.
The ideas of today's Churches are basically the same as the Proto-Orthodox Church (the opposite of the Gnostics before there was really any political legitimacy to either).
It's a matter of faith. I can never prove the Jesus was the Son of God, and the Trinity is definitely a mind blower. You either chose to believe or not. Again, at some point, unless God decides to come down and tell you to your face, you have to make that leap of faith, it can't be proven. Strangely enough, I view Jesus as a bit of an Avatar, the physical manifestation of God on Earth, so he is both God and not God.
But pretty much everyone has had a desire to murder someone at some point, and I dare say EVERYONE has had a desire to have premarital sex or cheat on their spouse. Having a desire to do something doesn't make it right.
Agreed. I don't think someone should get married just to get married, you definitely have to accept who you are.
Yes it is my duty, but I firmly believe in the "you get farther with a teaspoon of sugar than a gallon of vinegar." That's why I'll talk until I am blue in the face about it. I'll even tell you that I don't believe what you believe (assuming you believe something different). I'll go so far as to say that yes, if you don't repent at some point (which goes into another matter, but I do believe in a last change, not just straight to hell once you die), you'll likely end up in Hell. And that's a concept that I struggle with given my belief in a merciful God.
But I won't berate you for your beliefs, or just tell you you are wrong.
Early Christians spread their beliefs by talking about it, not by threatening people.
It gets to the point of what a marriage is or isn't. For state purposes, it's just a contract, and hence I have no problem with a contract being two adults, whatever the nature. As for a Church though, it is something completely different.
Quite wrong. Islam has perspecuted between their different sects. Hell, look at a lot of what has gone on in Iraq. Shites and Sunni's do NOT get along. Even the Jews, not so much currently, but when the original Israeli state existed persecuted their own over religious differences. This is not unique to Christianity at all.
It is likely that it was carried as an oral tradition for some time, if for no other reason than it was dangerous to write them down. The Romans brutally persecuted Christians and the Jews weren't much better. Both viewed them as a danger to the existing establishment.
The tale is pretty similar in most respects (at least the basic facts), the issue is that it is told from Judas's perspective and it shows him as not a villain but rather as understanding the Christ's sacrifice was necessary and hence he had no choice. It's an interesting piece, but does not appear in any record until significantly after most of the other Gospels, canonical or not. It reflects many ideas that were creeping into Christianity at the time (That Christ HAD to die for us to achieve salvation, that Christians blamed the Jews for Jesus's death, etc.)
It's an interesting piece, but it shows up pretty late in the record and while it can be debated that whether the other Gospel's were actually authored by their namesakes, it doesn't appear even during its use, that Judas was thought to have authored the piece.
Some were left out because they would have caused confusion. Some because they didn't add anything (like Thomas). Some because they had things in them that were very contrary to the prevailing beliefs of the others. It's like the example I put above about the 12 witnesses. At some point, you have to make a judgment call on who is right and who is not.
Additionally, the Gnostic sects were very much against the developing Church as a hierarchal organization. Now maybe they got that right, but it caused a lot of friction.
Yes and no. First, the gnostic gospels aren't completely different. They don't make the death and resurrection as much of a focus (even not including it in some), but they never dispute Jesus's divinity. Salvation is still the focus, and it still comes through Jesus.
That's the exact problem! No disputing it. However, realize that not every apostle was with Jesus everyday, and even if they wrote it down, right then and there, they'll still write it down differently. That's why the details aren't the most important thing, the central message is. And that message is simply that salvation comes through acceptance of Christ. Whether that comes through self-awareness or blind acceptance really doesn't manner, and in fact, you need a little of both. How can you accept Jesus if you don't understand yourself? Your own faults and desires and such? But at some point, you'll have to take a few things on faith too, because you can't prove everything.
ultimately yes. The only thing that matters is accepting Jesus into your heart thus accepting him as your savior and only hope for eternal salvation.
Prior to the past few hundred years (and obviously some of the first few centuries), there were basically The Roman Catholics, The Orthodox, the Coptics, and one more (can't think of the name). Their core beliefs were mainly the same, though their were some differences. However, they were all political institutions as much as religious ones, and thus spawned the reformation and the various other splits that followed.
I'll say this, on the outside it may seem like the various splits are widely different, but from the inside I don't think so. I have friends from all of the major Christian denominations and while we may disagree on various points, we all hold the same core beliefs.
That's understandable. You ultimately have to come to your own consensus.
