Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
I think I can restate and simplify my point in this discussion.
There are two general categories of ways to learn about Christianity. One is through reading and study, history and theology. The second is through practice.
I’m suggesting that any complete study would include both. Depending on the person, people tend to gravitate towards one or the other.
WIthin the second category is an incredible variety of spiritual practice and directors of same. Also a large number of books on same. While the basics are the same, again depending on the person, various approaches will appeal or repel. It may take some looking.
My point or suggestion was that this second area, however it is explored, could provide information for you about the validity of Jesus and Christianity that is unavailable using only the first method.
Try an enemy that's not out to kill you then
Then he is not your enemy.
I didn't think you believed in all that, or in God.
Did I say it was my belief? I am just repeating what the Bible says about loving your enemies. Do you believe in God, and if so please tell me what is God — what is it that you believe in?
Drop the story too. You don't believe it anyway
Then why are you telling me that I should follow his instructions? I am simply repeating what is said in the Bible about forgiveness and loving your enemies.
So stop speculating.
I am not speculating; you are. You are the one who has all these "possible" research models that we have to investigate...college cafeteria nonsense.
She didn't end up with "be merry and enjoy the fruits of your life."
That was her choice, either out of the goodness of her heart or fear. But, in trying to follow in Jesus' footsteps, in the world God loved so much, she lost her faith in God. She spent the rest of her life serving a God she couldn't believe in because of all the suffering she saw.
It's much easier to believe in the comfort of our comfortable homes, when things are going well, and the stomachs are full and the water is bottled and clean. How many believe so fervently and do what she did, or even die for their faith? It's much easier to talk about it on the FR.
You know what they say, when asked? They say "God wants me here. If God told me to go there I would." That's like the someone who takes the church collection, throws it in the air and says "what God catches is his, what he doesn't catch is mine..."
It doesn't even seem to be successful in avoiding thinking about the suffering of others and what our response should be.
Being merry and enjoying the fruits of your life doesn't mean you have to be insensitive or inhuman, and unable to think compassionately about the less fortunate ones. It’s another thing trying to save world from its own inhumanity.
DF, I think we have exhausted the topic long ago. The way to learn about Christianity is to read Christian books, the NT and Christian literature.
You don't practice while you are learning. You can practice only after you have learned. You wouldn't want your doctor to be a first-year medical student, or even a first-year resident.
Practicing Christianity it is trying to live according to what you think Christianity is, what you created in your mind and call it Christianity. Just as no lawyer practices law the same way, nor comes to the same conclusions, nor divorces his personal habits, character, culture from his profession, etc. neither do Christians divorce their "filters" from their religion.
They all believe they found the right answer and think they practice the "right" kind of Christianity. But in effect they they created a Platonic idea of the Law, or of God and religion, in their own image and according to their own taste. Some are better at it than others, some have greater following, but that proves nothing. Only the results do. And what are the results of 2,000 years of Christianity to boast about?
My point or suggestion was that this second area, however it is explored, could provide information for you about the validity of Jesus and Christianity that is unavailable using only the first method.
The history simply proves your assumption wrong. Christianity is actually a dying religion. In Europe for sure. In Asia it never gained dominance. In Africa also. Where it did once exist, it is fractured and divided, with different religious parties bickering and arguing over the faith they supposedly share. Thanks but no thanks.
please tell me what is God — what is it that you believe in?
Why? You have plenty of other people's view and beliefs to choose from, what use would another one be? My point is, if you are like me in some regard, you have to find out for yourself and cannot take another's word for it. The concept "choose to believe" doesn't compute, or apply here.
You are the one who has all these "possible" research models that we have to investigate...college cafeteria nonsense.
It's kind of one model; It's much older and deeper than college cafeterias. I don't think it's a stretch to say it's an obvious and necessary part of complete knowledge of the subject. Pretty much a no-brainer, IMHO; like saying "if you want to most fully know what dancing is, try dancing."
But, in trying to follow in Jesus' footsteps, in the world God loved so much, she lost her faith in God. She spent..
Do you think she wasted her life, would live her life completely differently if she could, her life had no meaning, she devoted her life to something false… and worry that you would suffer the same fate?
In any case, it's not relevant here. I'm not proposing that you, or anyone, become Mother Teresa or Jesus.
It's much easier to believe in the comfort..
I hear and understand your points about this and I realize it is very important to you. However, it's another topic. I'm not discussing belief or choosing to believe or faith at all here.
Certainly one way for a certain kind of knowledge. I believe you could memorize them all and not know much at all about Christianity in its essence. In terms of what Jesus wished you to know. And, I believe you could be illiterate and know more.
You don't practice while you are learning. You can practice only after you have learned. You wouldn't want your doctor to be a first-year medical student, or even a first-year resident.
Perhaps we have different ideas of "practice" here. I'm certainly not talking about practicing to become a priest.
The only knowledge required is the knowledge that you exist. Reading and other study only helps if it helps you observe better, with fewer distractions. Reality is the big subject, sub-topics for focus and observation can be selected, often by a director, depending on the person these can be theological or not, often a piece of scripture, but mostly it is doing, not studying in the book sense.
It's not an intellectual exercise.
There are set schools and exercises, but these are not for everyone and shouldn't be assumed to be all there is. What works for one is a distraction for another.
If you can just apply the same thinking to the rest...talking donkeys, curing people by driving demons out of them, for example, you'd be on the right track.
And here I thought we had to convert people. But no, if I feed them his actual flesh and blood, as transubstantiated by a priest
Show me where does it say that the priest 'transubstantantiates' the Eucharistic gifts. This is something you made up. The change is believed to take place by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who is beseeched by the priest, in humility, to change the gifts (epiclesis). It is believed that, if it is done with the right intention, God responds to the prayer because the faithful trust in God. Whether you believe it or not, you don't have to mischaracterize.
As Paul puts it, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
How would Apostle Paul or Luke know exactly what Jesus said since neither was there? And why would you believe his version over, say Matthew's (supposedly) eyewitness account?
But in the end, I’m more interested in what Jesus said than the church fathers.
How do you know what Jesus said when the accounts of his own Apostles differ?
Because I don't think you know.
Useless speculation.
The only knowledge required is the knowledge that you exist
No, you are peddling some "research" to find value in Christianity.
It's not an intellectual exercise
Research and experiments are not intellectual exercises. More cafeteria BS.
There are set schools and exercises, but these are not for everyone and shouldn't be assumed to be all there is. What works for one is a distraction for another
You are all over...try sticking with verifiable facts. Maybe then we can have a meaningful conversation.
Why does that mean for you, why does that have value for you?
What exactly does that mean to receive "spiritually?"
I never said it has value to me. You are the one who is peddling Christianity to me as a college cafeteria "valuable research" project. Obviously you believe it has value to you; you bleieve it does. So I ask you what is it that you believe in.
If my answer has no value to you, why do you ask? For my benefit? I don't know how that would be, perhaps, we'll see.
You are the one who is peddling Christianity to me as a college cafeteria "valuable research" project.
I honestly did not intend to irritate you so much by this. I am very sorry.
Obviously you believe it has value to you; you bleieve it does.
It does to me, the exploration for truth is extremely valuable to me, and discovering that there are other means, means that I found much more effective, was valuable too. My conjecture was that based on your discussion, these might be to you too. I actually thought it could be something that you would devote some of your considerable interest and skill to, and that this would have value for you.
So I ask you what is it that you believe in.
Truth.
Truth.
I must interject here. What do you mean by "Truth"? Facts? Reality? How do you define "Truth"?
In this use facts and truth are not the same thing; wisdom would be truth but consists of more than an accumulation of facts - it includes the value and meaning of the facts.
Reality is closer to this use of Truth, and an essential part. If you look at reality as facts and meaning as wisdom then that's a pretty close approximation of what I'm referring to as Truth. Generally: What exists and what's its meaning.
And, please, don't ask me "What exists and what does it mean?" :)
Kinda thought that that was where you were going. Now would you agree that there are two separate categories of things: those that we know and those that we believe?
Please clarify and nail that use down for me? Based on some evidence or no evidence for example. Is the difference between know and believe a scalar difference of knowledge or...?
Not really. Belief is acceptance based upon criteria other than fact, which is not or cannot be proven. Now, there are times when belief becomes justified by later discovered facts, but that simply moves things from one category to the other. Not a scale.
Knowledge is based upon fact. Things that can be rigourously proven and are demonstrable.
The Faith is belief, not fact. That the Bible exists (in its myriad forms) is fact, not belief. We believe that God inspired (and in the case of the Torah authored) the Bible. We know what the Canon of the NT is. Some examples, as it were.
“What is meant by ‘real presence’ vs transubstantiation?”
Transubstantiation is really more about an explanation of what happens at the consecration as a result of the epiklesis. In other words, the Latin Church seemed to feel that since they noticed that the Body and Blood of Christ still looked and tasted like bread and wine after the consecration, an explanation was required and thus all the talk about substances and accidents. In Orthodoxy, there is no explanation for what is a divine Mystery, nor is there any need for one. It is all a matter of Faith, Mr. R.
I found this comment from, of all places, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Its actually pretty good:
“The eucharistic liturgy of the Orthodox Church is a kind of mystery drama in which the advent of the Lord is mystically consummated and the entire history of salvation—the incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Christ the Logos, up to the outpouring of the Holy Sprit—is recapitulated. The Orthodox Church also attaches the greatest value to the fact that within the eucharistic mystery an actual transformation of the eucharistic elements in bread and wine takes place. This is not the same as the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ, though the properties of the elements remain the same, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine.
“According to some Orthodox authorities, the Orthodox view is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence. The essential and central happening in the Orthodox liturgy, however, is the descent of the resurrected Lord himself, who enters the community as “the King of the universe, borne along invisibly above spears by the angelic hosts.” The transformation of the elements is, therefore, the immediate emanation of this personal presence. Thus, the Orthodox Church does not preserve and display the consecrated host after and outside the eucharistic liturgy, as in the Roman Catholic Church, because the consecrated offerings are mystically apprehended and actualized only during the eucharistic meal.
In the Roman Catholic mass, the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is strongly emphasized, but it is less so in the Orthodox liturgy. This is because in the Orthodox liturgy the Eucharist is not only a representation of the crucifixion sacrifice (as in the Roman mass) but also of the entire history of salvation, in which the entire congregation, priest and laity, participates. Thus, the Orthodox Church has also held fast to the original form of Holy Communion in both kinds.”
“How does that (Baptist belief) differ from the Orthodox understanding?”
Well, we believe that the bread and the wine are really the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. That they taste like bread and wine is of absolutely no consequence, concern or significance. This is no surprise. Matt. 9:26.
The consecration and Eucharist are indeed a remembrance of Christ’s mission. As we say during the consecration:
“Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,...”
But it is, for us, more than that. After the epiklesis, the priest prays:
“So that they (the Body and Blood) may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.”
Unworthy reception of the “Holy Gifts for the Holy People of God” is to eat and drink to condemnation and so we all pray before we approach the chalice, “with fear, faith and love”:
” I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.
How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.
Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.
Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.”
How does this differ from your beliefs? I don’t know. From that of the Latins? Well, that’s probably a long, long post!
Ok, that helps. Here's the way I framework it.
Knowledge can be seen as different spheres, concentric ones, sphere's inside spheres. Each sphere has it's limits of what can be known, given its tools, methods and the data it can deal with.
Call the innermost sphere "science". It uses the scientific method, deals only with data that can be detected by the senses, etc. It is limited to the parts of reality that can be detected by the seneses and its extensions (microscope, etc.). However it is the firmest knowledge, the facts we can say with the most certainty are "known." This is also the most limited set or sphere.
Things that cannot be known given these limitations, transcend science's sphere.
Call the next sphere "reason/logic" or philosophy. It's method is formal logic. data includes those of science and those of mind manipulating a set of rules. It's limitation is conditional values or statements.
Knowledge beyond this limit transcends reason/logic.
Call the third sphere "religion". It can be seen as dealing with absolutes…
I'm going on too long.
Your "existence of the Bible" is scientific. Other portions of your "belief" use scientific and reason/logic; some transcend those two. Knowledge can involve more than one sphere, the firmness - i.e., hardness, objectively provable, decreases in the higher spheres. "Value" increases. So we know more about less in one direction, less about more in another.
So, to me there is only degrees and levels of knowledge and it is scalar. This doesn't not mean we cannot know less firm things with a high level of certainty, but our ability to objectively prove them decreases. Some knowledge, an important segment, by its nature can only be known subjectively. Actually, the things we know best on all levels are because we know them subjectively - i.e., by our own personal experience rather than accepting another's word or by memorizing a formula.
Very long. Want the short version? The Greeks (artists and artisans) were given the Deposit of the Faith. Since the Romans (engineers and technicians) ran the known world, they brought it to Rome and attempted to translate artistic language into technical language.
That mindset led us down the road of parallel understandings and eventually schism. Isn't it ironic that English, the bastard child of many of the major languages in the world is a great force in bringing us back together because English is now the lingua franca and not Greek or Latin (or its derivatives such as French). English, one of the hardest lanauges to learn properly, ironically, is one of the easier second languages to learn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.