[quote='Drich' pid='313310' dateline='1342836248']
[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='313251' dateline='1342827951']
[quote]we are talking about this common origin.[/quote][quote]Again no 'we' are not. For you are trying to introduce non-scriptural 'facts' into the orgins of the Church.[/quote]Since when is scripture fact? The Bible as history has been debunked over and over again in this forum. Isn't this thread another debunking thread?
[quote] We are talking about the beginnings not the end. The origins are not the final results. Why you bring up the final results, I don't know, perhaps it is to confuse people.[/quote][quote]The final results? as in the only part of what you have posted, That is apart of the record the bible keeps?[/quote] I was talking about wondering why they didn't teach church history. Then you replied "Because not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." The term "church history applied to all forms of Christianity from it's origins down to the many expressions we have today." It could also be called the history of Christianity. This is something you should already know. If you've spent any time reading church history books you would be familiar with the word usage. The word usage is also obvious.
The expressions of Christianity we have today are the results of the development of doctrine over the centuries with some new ideas put in the mix. The expressions we have today are as of this moment the final results. These will continue to grow in the future but right now they are the result of what has been. Church doctrine developes over time.
To answer your statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." This is a usage of the word "religious" that those on this forum might not be used to. It could be the topic of another thread. Generally speaking though it is a word to goad people into a more experiential form of religious practice and out of older traditions. It is a tactic used more by evangelicals. Basically what they are trying to do is get people to give up old bullshit for the bullshit fed to them by the pastor. They give the word religious a negative, stuffy, old, connotation and make you feel good about not getting rid of (what they define as) old religious ideas. The experiential part is to distract people while you fuck them. Make them feel so good they don't realize that it's bullshit. It's good to try to make people feel good about giving you money. Again this is a problem of what the pastor is telling you and what he is really doing. It's just another mind control tactic. Thats the story behind your usage of the word "religious".
As for the statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." No this is not true. The church (Christianity) exists because of the religious efforts of man. That is to say that church doctrine exists because of the efforts of man in rewriting docrtrine to (sort of) fit the times. In this case the "religious efforts" that allow the church to exist would be things like brainwashing, enforcement behavior, squelching of science, and enforcement of orthodoxy.
[quote]Now I'll be a bit more specific about Church history. What is usually taught in most modern protestant churches is that god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god (I won't mention the problems with this because that's an argument for another thread). Anyway, the belief was that it was perfect from the start. Then people began to fuck things up and nasty horrible heretics sprang up to lead people astray so clarification of what the Bible means to say was important. Over time more fuck ups and heretics happened so more clarification of what the pure holy blah, blah, word of god meant was necessary. During this time the Christians were persecuted horribly. I should point out that most churches actually skip the fuck ups and heretics but don't usually ignore the persecution part. Feelings of persecution and the possible threat of it happening again unify people so it's a good brainwashing tactic.[/quote] [quote]So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?[/quote]
I just told you what the criteria for a canonical book is. As the doctrine states (my paraphrase) "god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god". I didn't go further into this because you, as a Christian are supposed to know what constitutes scripture (supposedly the very words of god) and what constitutes writings about god (not the very words of god). As the doctrine goes only those inspired by god or anointed specifically to write scripture can write scripture. This is why authorship of the Bible is so important. You've got to pin the book on the author so to speak. As the bullshit doctrine goes they have various bullshit ways to prove via scripture that the people they have pinned books to (the people whom they say are the authors of the books, like for example Moses for the first 5 books of the Bible and Paul for his letters) were anointed by god specifically to write scripture. Conveniently after Paul and John God didn't anoint anyone else to write (btw this bullshit doctrine assumes that the disciples of Jesus themselves wrote the gospels, it assumes a bunch of other things but I won't get into that it's too numerous to deal with). when people conveniently stopped getting anointed to write scripture the cannon was closed. You, as a Christian are supposed to know this therefore your question "So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?" in response to my initial explanation of what makes for scripture implies that you don't know this. Why do you argue about stuff you don't know about. Do you like the sound your voice makes when you talk out your ass? Yes, I'm being rude because it looks like I'm being sucked into yet another pointless, time wasting, argument with you.
[quote] It is also taught that most churches were home churches , this is taught to encourage modern congregations to have things called home groups. [/quote]
because we know the first century had resources like the modern equilvant and they were setting up the modern church to make even more money....
-or-
[quote]Most first century churches were indeed held in peoples houses because There Were No Other Places To Hold A Gathering Of Believers![/quote] I know this. And you know that if I know that the early church met in homes that I also know why they met in homes so mentioning it is stupid. Your statement was a ploy to circumvent why I mentioned the modern church mentioned why the early church met in homes and to try to make me look stupid. As I said before the reason why the crap about the early churches meeting in homes is pushed in modern churches is to justify home groups in modern churches. home groups in modern churches make a very large church still seem intimate. It is so that pastors can have large churches. Large churches rake in large amounts of money. As I said before, it's about the money. Keep on topic please.
[quote]Modern churches are quite large. Home groups are a way to make large churches feel less cavernous; more intimate.[/quote]Yes, so people can do what it is I have done for you all. Given you an oppertunity to get answers that you couldn't or wouldn't get on your own.
[quote] Really it's just about money.[/quote] [quote]Yes because I am making tons of money from my efforts here... [/quote] I was talking about the pastors and why they preach things. Why you personally are debating on an atheist forum is a different thing all together. Don't mix things. Stay with the topic.
[quote] The more suckers...I mean people in your congregation, the bigger the money funnel is and the more money the pastor makes. [/quote][quote]-Or- The more the Home groups, the more likly people split off the main church and start their own.[/quote] That's the fear, it's unjustified though. Churches usually keep close eyes on their home groups and Bible studies. Even then it's not so easy to get a bunch of people to split off and start their own church, it does not happen every day at a church.
[quote]Then sometime at some starting point in the 20th century we finally started to get it right. We are going back to the original interpretation of the Bible, there will be a revival because of this, All the churches will unite and become just like our denomination (fill in the blank for who "our" denomination would be") Jesus is cuming soon blah blah blah.[/quote][quote]no. "One body many parts." Do you know what this means? Do you know the passage and where this comes from? If yes then you know that "The Church" By defination can not all worship under one 'denominational rule.'[/quote]Oh, the lovely "One body many parts" bullshit. For anyone on this forum who's lucky enough not to be familiar with this in practice it means "You can express your Christianity a bit differently, and we encourage this, but go to far and there will be consequences." What is said and and how it is practiced (what is done) are two different things.
Also, even though many churches are drifting towards non denominationalism non denominationalism is, in practice, an expression of Christianity. What they believe in and how they practice are similar enough to be grouped into a denomination even though they say they aren't a denomination.
[quote]Note that I don't believe the bullshit above. Note that I've seriously over simplified things. Note that none of this matters because it is all bullshit that will change as it suits Christianity in the future. More importantly also note that I'm aware that what they teach in churches and what really happened are two different things. [/quote][quote]Perhaps you should 'note' that it may have been a while since you been to a church that does not think Christ revolves around them or what they believe. Seriously, if this is your legitmate understanding of christianity then perhaps you should take an honest look at biblical Christianity, because Biblical Christianity is truly nothing like what you have described or seem to understand.[/quote]I've was a Christian for 30 years. I've traveled a lot and have been to many many different churches and denominations. I know what they mean when they say "Biblical Christianity". I've heard so many expressions of this. Bullshit is still bullshit no matter what the bull ate.
[quote] Also note that I'm aware that the RCC tells a different story. I wrote what I wrote to explain what I meant when, in my original post, I said they don't teach much church history in church. They don't teach much about the origins of Christianity because every denomination, and the RCC, have something to hide.[/quote]
[quote]and maybe now you have enough information to understand why i said "not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it."[/quote] If you were following along, and it seems as if you haven't been doing this, the "something they have to hide" is the fact that the history that modern churches try to feed their congregations is different than what actually happened. The modern churches don't want people finding out the truth. They don't want people to read Bart Ehrman and other's like him.
Debating with you is time consuming, exhausting and useless.
I'm going to find a nice wall to bang my head against now but before I go, thank you min, and other's for providing information. You've done a lot to answer my question.
[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='313251' dateline='1342827951']
[quote]we are talking about this common origin.[/quote][quote]Again no 'we' are not. For you are trying to introduce non-scriptural 'facts' into the orgins of the Church.[/quote]Since when is scripture fact? The Bible as history has been debunked over and over again in this forum. Isn't this thread another debunking thread?
[quote] We are talking about the beginnings not the end. The origins are not the final results. Why you bring up the final results, I don't know, perhaps it is to confuse people.[/quote][quote]The final results? as in the only part of what you have posted, That is apart of the record the bible keeps?[/quote] I was talking about wondering why they didn't teach church history. Then you replied "Because not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." The term "church history applied to all forms of Christianity from it's origins down to the many expressions we have today." It could also be called the history of Christianity. This is something you should already know. If you've spent any time reading church history books you would be familiar with the word usage. The word usage is also obvious.
The expressions of Christianity we have today are the results of the development of doctrine over the centuries with some new ideas put in the mix. The expressions we have today are as of this moment the final results. These will continue to grow in the future but right now they are the result of what has been. Church doctrine developes over time.
To answer your statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." This is a usage of the word "religious" that those on this forum might not be used to. It could be the topic of another thread. Generally speaking though it is a word to goad people into a more experiential form of religious practice and out of older traditions. It is a tactic used more by evangelicals. Basically what they are trying to do is get people to give up old bullshit for the bullshit fed to them by the pastor. They give the word religious a negative, stuffy, old, connotation and make you feel good about not getting rid of (what they define as) old religious ideas. The experiential part is to distract people while you fuck them. Make them feel so good they don't realize that it's bullshit. It's good to try to make people feel good about giving you money. Again this is a problem of what the pastor is telling you and what he is really doing. It's just another mind control tactic. Thats the story behind your usage of the word "religious".
As for the statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." No this is not true. The church (Christianity) exists because of the religious efforts of man. That is to say that church doctrine exists because of the efforts of man in rewriting docrtrine to (sort of) fit the times. In this case the "religious efforts" that allow the church to exist would be things like brainwashing, enforcement behavior, squelching of science, and enforcement of orthodoxy.
[quote]Now I'll be a bit more specific about Church history. What is usually taught in most modern protestant churches is that god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god (I won't mention the problems with this because that's an argument for another thread). Anyway, the belief was that it was perfect from the start. Then people began to fuck things up and nasty horrible heretics sprang up to lead people astray so clarification of what the Bible means to say was important. Over time more fuck ups and heretics happened so more clarification of what the pure holy blah, blah, word of god meant was necessary. During this time the Christians were persecuted horribly. I should point out that most churches actually skip the fuck ups and heretics but don't usually ignore the persecution part. Feelings of persecution and the possible threat of it happening again unify people so it's a good brainwashing tactic.[/quote] [quote]So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?[/quote]
I just told you what the criteria for a canonical book is. As the doctrine states (my paraphrase) "god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god". I didn't go further into this because you, as a Christian are supposed to know what constitutes scripture (supposedly the very words of god) and what constitutes writings about god (not the very words of god). As the doctrine goes only those inspired by god or anointed specifically to write scripture can write scripture. This is why authorship of the Bible is so important. You've got to pin the book on the author so to speak. As the bullshit doctrine goes they have various bullshit ways to prove via scripture that the people they have pinned books to (the people whom they say are the authors of the books, like for example Moses for the first 5 books of the Bible and Paul for his letters) were anointed by god specifically to write scripture. Conveniently after Paul and John God didn't anoint anyone else to write (btw this bullshit doctrine assumes that the disciples of Jesus themselves wrote the gospels, it assumes a bunch of other things but I won't get into that it's too numerous to deal with). when people conveniently stopped getting anointed to write scripture the cannon was closed. You, as a Christian are supposed to know this therefore your question "So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?" in response to my initial explanation of what makes for scripture implies that you don't know this. Why do you argue about stuff you don't know about. Do you like the sound your voice makes when you talk out your ass? Yes, I'm being rude because it looks like I'm being sucked into yet another pointless, time wasting, argument with you.
[quote] It is also taught that most churches were home churches , this is taught to encourage modern congregations to have things called home groups. [/quote]
because we know the first century had resources like the modern equilvant and they were setting up the modern church to make even more money....-or-
[quote]Most first century churches were indeed held in peoples houses because There Were No Other Places To Hold A Gathering Of Believers![/quote] I know this. And you know that if I know that the early church met in homes that I also know why they met in homes so mentioning it is stupid. Your statement was a ploy to circumvent why I mentioned the modern church mentioned why the early church met in homes and to try to make me look stupid. As I said before the reason why the crap about the early churches meeting in homes is pushed in modern churches is to justify home groups in modern churches. home groups in modern churches make a very large church still seem intimate. It is so that pastors can have large churches. Large churches rake in large amounts of money. As I said before, it's about the money. Keep on topic please.
[quote]Modern churches are quite large. Home groups are a way to make large churches feel less cavernous; more intimate.[/quote]Yes, so people can do what it is I have done for you all. Given you an oppertunity to get answers that you couldn't or wouldn't get on your own.
[quote] Really it's just about money.[/quote] [quote]Yes because I am making tons of money from my efforts here... [/quote] I was talking about the pastors and why they preach things. Why you personally are debating on an atheist forum is a different thing all together. Don't mix things. Stay with the topic.
[quote] The more suckers...I mean people in your congregation, the bigger the money funnel is and the more money the pastor makes. [/quote][quote]-Or- The more the Home groups, the more likly people split off the main church and start their own.[/quote] That's the fear, it's unjustified though. Churches usually keep close eyes on their home groups and Bible studies. Even then it's not so easy to get a bunch of people to split off and start their own church, it does not happen every day at a church.
[quote]Then sometime at some starting point in the 20th century we finally started to get it right. We are going back to the original interpretation of the Bible, there will be a revival because of this, All the churches will unite and become just like our denomination (fill in the blank for who "our" denomination would be") Jesus is cuming soon blah blah blah.[/quote][quote]no. "One body many parts." Do you know what this means? Do you know the passage and where this comes from? If yes then you know that "The Church" By defination can not all worship under one 'denominational rule.'[/quote]Oh, the lovely "One body many parts" bullshit. For anyone on this forum who's lucky enough not to be familiar with this in practice it means "You can express your Christianity a bit differently, and we encourage this, but go to far and there will be consequences." What is said and and how it is practiced (what is done) are two different things.
Also, even though many churches are drifting towards non denominationalism non denominationalism is, in practice, an expression of Christianity. What they believe in and how they practice are similar enough to be grouped into a denomination even though they say they aren't a denomination.
[quote]Note that I don't believe the bullshit above. Note that I've seriously over simplified things. Note that none of this matters because it is all bullshit that will change as it suits Christianity in the future. More importantly also note that I'm aware that what they teach in churches and what really happened are two different things. [/quote][quote]Perhaps you should 'note' that it may have been a while since you been to a church that does not think Christ revolves around them or what they believe. Seriously, if this is your legitmate understanding of christianity then perhaps you should take an honest look at biblical Christianity, because Biblical Christianity is truly nothing like what you have described or seem to understand.[/quote]I've was a Christian for 30 years. I've traveled a lot and have been to many many different churches and denominations. I know what they mean when they say "Biblical Christianity". I've heard so many expressions of this. Bullshit is still bullshit no matter what the bull ate.
[quote] Also note that I'm aware that the RCC tells a different story. I wrote what I wrote to explain what I meant when, in my original post, I said they don't teach much church history in church. They don't teach much about the origins of Christianity because every denomination, and the RCC, have something to hide.[/quote]
[quote]and maybe now you have enough information to understand why i said "not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it."[/quote] If you were following along, and it seems as if you haven't been doing this, the "something they have to hide" is the fact that the history that modern churches try to feed their congregations is different than what actually happened. The modern churches don't want people finding out the truth. They don't want people to read Bart Ehrman and other's like him.
Debating with you is time consuming, exhausting and useless.
I'm going to find a nice wall to bang my head against now but before I go, thank you min, and other's for providing information. You've done a lot to answer my question.
I have studied the Bible and the theology behind Christianity for many years. I have been to many churches. I have walked the depth and the breadth of the religion and, as a result of this, I have a lot of bullshit to scrape off the bottom of my shoes. ~Ziploc Surprise
