Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[ahinton]

Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning
...or so I'd thought... - but apparently not any longer, as it's evidently more of a case of "On your Marks - get sects - GO!"...

[Pabmusic]

... Which is the one true Church established by Christ?[/b]

The one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church.

(a) Many churches which claim to be Christian have broken away from the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. These churches were founded by men who had no authority from God to found a church...

Wow! Again, fascinating stuff, Jean.

The Catholic church was not in fact the first Christian church. That was the Church of Jerusalem, led by James and Peter. They were Jews, who insisted that all members be Jews - circumcision, the lot. It was an apocalyptic church ("the end of the world is nigh") which preached Jesus's apocalyptic vision that the Kingdom of God (i.e.: Israel) would be established under the Son of God (Jesus. 'Son of God' was a Jewish epithet for a favoured mortal - David had been described as the 'Son of God") and the twelve provinces ruled by each of the disciples.) Jesus tells all this to his followers in the Bible (bits that aren't emphasised of course). Jesus was the Messiah (the anointed one like David had been - Greek translation Kristos or Christ). The big problem for the Ebionites (the 'Church of Jerusalem') was that the Messiah was killed - no-one had ever prophesied a dead Messiah before - and that the world didn't end in the lifetimes of some of the Apostles (as Jesus had prophesied), and so the idea of a non-corporeal "divine" Jesus grew and was most successfully exploited by Paul. When Pauline Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire in the 300s, the Ebionites and Gnostics (who believed it was all divine anyway) were declared heretics and the Roman Church imposed the doctrines of the Trinity, Transubstantiation and a Heaven after death (and other things), none of which the earthly Ebionites or the transcendental Gnostics accepted.

Thus the Catholic Church was the one that won the heart of the Roman emperor.

[ahinton]

Wow! Again, fascinating stuff, Jean.

The Catholic church was not in fact the first Christian church. That was the Church of Jerusalem, led by James and Peter. They were Jews, who insisted that all members be Jews - circumcision, the lot. It was an apocalyptic church ("the end of the world is nigh") which preached Jesus's apocalyptic vision that the Kingdom of God (i.e.: Israel) would be established under the Son of God (Jesus. 'Son of God' was a Jewish epithet for a favoured mortal - David had been described as the 'Son of God") and the twelve provinces ruled by each of the disciples.) Jesus tells all this to his followers in the Bible (bits that aren't emphasised of course). Jesus was the Messiah (the anointed one like David had been - Greek translation Kristos or Christ). The big problem for the Ebionites (the 'Church of Jerusalem') was that the Messiah was killed - no-one had ever prophesied a dead Messiah before - and that the world didn't end in the lifetimes of some of the Apostles (as Jesus had prophesied), and so the idea of a non-corporeal "divine" Jesus grew and was most successfully exploited by Paul. When Pauline Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire in the 300s, the Ebionites and Gnostics (who believed it was all divine anyway) were declared heretics and the Roman Church imposed the doctrines of the Trinity, Transubstantiation and a Heaven after death (and other things), none of which the earthly Ebionites or the transcendental Gnostics accepted.

Thus the Catholic Church was the one that won the heart of the Roman emperor.

Fascinating indeed - but should it not be in a thread devoted to the history of the Christian Church rather than one devoted to the topic of this one?

[Pabmusic]

Fascinating indeed - but should it not be in a thread devoted to the history of the Christian Church rather than one devoted to the topic of this one?

Of course it should. Typical of me, I'm afraid. Please ignore it.

[jean]

Don't apologise, please!

A thread bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[ahinton]

Don't apologise, please!

A thread bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

That's a whole lot of "eth"ing, jean...

[scottycelt]

Of the Universal Church.

If you believe the Roman Catholic church is the church and all the rest are heresies, that answer is obvious nonsense.

But many outside the Roman Catholic church do not believe that.

I know someone who believes that the Roman Catholic church is an upstart invention of the Council of Trent. Not that I'm saying I agree with that, but it's a view.

(Did you read the article I linked to above?)

You are absolutely right. Catholics believe their church IS the Universal Church. And it can trace its origins right back to Peter. That is not meant to be a boast or meaning its members are any better than anybody else it's purely a statement of fact. Logically, the Catholic Church does believe other forms of Christian belief are heresies. Some Protestants claim the Catholic Church itself is heretical. Both positions are logical. I haven't a problem understanding these positions Religion is not politics maybe ultimately settling for a compromise. Some search for Truth not Compromise and eventually have to make up our own minds.

Yes I read your 'article'. You mean the one highlighted in red, for some reason?

Was their anything particularly new or revelatory in it that you think I should comment on? Obviously taken from a Catholic website, I thought it tended to support my point entirely, but maybe I missed something?

Ooops, ahinton's getting upset at all this sects-talk so I'd better scarper. <yikes>

[jean]

You are absolutely right...

I usually am.

[ahinton]

Ooops, ahinton's getting upset at all this sects-talk so I'd better scarper

Far from it; I did indeed note my agreement that it's all very interesting and merely added that it might be better sited in a thread devoted to it rather than to something else, which is by no stretch of anyone's imagination an indicator of my being "upset" (or "upsect", or whatever)...

[ahinton]

I usually am.

Your infallibility is duly noted and with especial interest in the curent context...

[jean]

Your infallibility...

Only when I speak ex cathedra.

The relevance of all this to the thread topic is that the only person who really wishes (obsessively) to discuss that is scotty himself, and for the discussion to proceed it is necessary to lay bare all the presuppositions which inform his worldview.

This is the process we're engaged in now.

[Pabmusic]

i'm having my tea (it's that time already!).

[Pabmusic]

...A thread bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

How appropriate!

[scottycelt]

Only when I speak ex cathedra.

The relevance of all this to the thread topic is that the only person who really wishes (obsessively) to discuss that is scotty himself, and for the discussion to proceed it is necessary to lay bare all the presuppositions which inform his worldview.

This is the process we're engaged in now.

Sadly, I'm not really sure 'we' were ever engaged in the same process.

It appears I have been diagnosed with a quite nasty disease called Counter-Phobia. It has come as quite a shock.

Please do carry on with all your phobias in Phobialand.

I'll now seek some urgent advice how to treat my Counter-Phobia. :sad:

[Serial_Apologist]

Logically, the Catholic Church does believe other forms of Christian belief are heresies. Some Protestants claim the Catholic Church itself is heretical. Both positions are logical.

This elucidates rather well the problem of spiritual traditions which rest on language-based assumptions - i.e. "In the beginning was the Word" - and which for greater clarity I think we should designate religions as spiritual traditions based on The Word, or for that matter words in general. Buddhism does not make this mistake of confusing the conceptual with the conceived, which, for want of no word at all, some designate the Absolute, others the Ground of Being.

Anyway, since silence is seen in the latter tradition as the best route to experiencing It, I'll shut up now.