Errr…what? I think you threw an extra word or something in there, jmullaney.
From the Catholic Catechism:
and
There of course are a few exceptions, which can be found at the above cite.
Try reading the book. The website was simply used for a reference to the differences in early Christianity. Albeit I found the site in a rather hasty search using the term “Essene” in an effort to get you a web-based site. The book is a far superior source.
But, if you must have web cites, then here’s a review of the book. Here’s anot her, site about the Essene relationship with early Christianity with lots of footnotes for further reading.
Once the view that Jesus was not born divinity was labeled heresy, then it was subject to the same persecutions that every other non-conforming heresy was. The Church’s heavy-handed and often violent history is well established.
For a Self-Proclaimed Apostate, you seem to defend the Roman Catholic Church rather vigorously.
Well, this was what I was trying to get at:
rjung’s 16 month old probably isn’t running around asking for a baptism. Thus, baptism isn’t necessary for him.
To add a few words…
Christianity isn’t the only with a “sacrifice to myself” element. Norse mythology has one, tho by no means is it as significant as the Christian version.
I’m at work and doing this from memory, so please forgive my imperfect renderings of this Lay.
Odin’s Sacrifice
Nine long nights I hung on that tree,
pierced by a spear, with no one to bring me cup or bread,
I hung there, a sacrifice to myself by myself,
Looking down I spied the Runes, I reached from them, screaming, I grabbed them.
**Libertarian wrote:
God divvies out Himself to each of us, and turns stewardship over to us. He becomes us. We are He. That which is truly alive in us is not that which is fueled by oxygen, but that which is fueled by Love. It is up to us whether we shall feed the God within us, that is, the God that we are, or whether we shall starve it.**
Isn’t this really pantheism, which goes against the concept of the One God which is a basic premise of Judeo/Christian/Islamic faith?
So is Genesis 2 and 4, and your point is? Genesis 3 does not say that we are all born filthy sinners and inherit sin, if that is what you are trying to imply. The Christian doctrine of original sin, as I understand it, is that everyone is born with the stain of sin and is predesposed to sin throughout their life and they can do nothing of and by themselves to remove that sin from their life. This concept is unscriptual as it pertains to the OT, but is needed to justify the need for a personal messiah. If we can conquer sin on our own (as it says time and again in the scriptures), the need for Jesus sacrifice is not needed.
Doesn’t the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas also describe Jesus murdering someone as a boy and then resurecting them? Last time I checked, murder was a sin, even if he did resurrect the victim. So if Jesus sinned then we have another problem, don’t we?
No can do. We are instructed in both the OT and NT to love God with all of our heart, MIND, soul and strength. God gave me a mind to use, not to place on the shelf.
I have never talked to two Christians who define the same belief. I have never talked to the same Christian twice and heard the same belief described. I have had the same Christian describe two or more entirely different and incompatible beliefs to me in the same conversation.
There is no place for intellectual activity in Christianity. As Libertarian says
Therefore if you want to think about your life and your actions and your relationship to the universe flee Christianity immediately. There is no hope for understanding there.
2000 years of theological thought (more if you count the Old Testament scholars) have gone for naught. These great thinkers have been wasting their time. They have been using their intellects to try and comprehend the religion they were born into, a religion that is beyond comprehension.
So we have been told that there is no point talking, questioning or even thinking about this infinite set that has come to be known as Christianity. I heartily agree. Now if we could only convince the Christians of this we would be all set because they would suddenly lose their “God” given authority to use intellectual and emotional arguments to lure the weak into their unintelligible club.
Freyr:
Pantheism is the belief that everything is God and God is everything. The trees. The flowers. The sun.
That decidedly is not my belief. God is not the atoms. He is Spirit. Spirit is not bound by the chronosynclasticinfindubulum.
Degrance:
Your advice to Christians is good advice indeed. God’s Name is not a set of vocal sounds. His Name is His Identity.
Though a man proclaim the syllables “I love Christ!” from the highest mountain top in his loudest voice and have a cold heart, he does not invoke the Name of God. Likewise, though a man whisper “Buddha is my savior,” in the privacy of his home and have a loving heart, it is the Name of God that he invokes.
What does Jesus mean by this? “In that day, there are many who will call me ‘Lord’, and I will say ‘Get away from me, you evildoers, I never knew you’.”
Which is why I REALLY have to apologize for this tangent. I just don’t want there to be any unneccessary misunderstanding.
Well, we really don’t know actually.
**Libertarian wrote:
Though a man proclaim the syllables “I love Christ!” from the highest mountain top in his loudest voice and have a cold heart, he does not invoke the Name of God. Likewise, though a man whisper “Buddha is my savior,” in the privacy of his home and have a loving heart, it is the Name of God that he invokes.**
Wrong… wrong…WRONG!!!
Please stop confusing Christianity and Buddhism! They are two very different systems of philosophy born out of two different cultures.
The Buddha, the historical Siddartha Gautama, was not a god, never claimed to be nor has he attained god-hood upon his death. Please stop conflating Christianity and Buddhism.
I’m just completely unfamiliar with any violent tactics being used against “heretics” in by the early Roman Church. I can see a fist fight breaking out, or something, as the various people held strong beliefs.
The site about the book merely uses the word violent. The site about Irenaeus just sort of sputters “We have seen how Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch sought to impose by force the rigid Old Testament Mosaic code upon Christians in their sphere of influence” but never actually does show what it assumes the reader will have seen.
But we don’t know what those were then.
People in that church have certaintly made a lot of mistakes over the years. But the people involved have changed over time – so it would be an error to claim the church took the same actions in 300AD as in 1300 or in 2001, etc.
Anytime I see someone post a falsehood, I correct them. The teachings of this church among others happen to be something I am knowledgable about.
Connor – what I mean, I guess, is since the Catholic Church believes Presumption is wrong they never admit to knowing anyone’s status (it is wrong to judge people.) So, perhaps it is safe to say baptism doesn’t matter either way. But the catechism does read like it was written by a hundred divinely inspired monkeys with typewriters at times – they are so careful about what they say you can’t figure out what they mean. 
Freyr:
(smile)
Does a man saying “Buddha is my savior” equate with Buddha saying “I am a god”? Confusion between “Christianity” and “Buddhism” (mere words) is trivial intellectual data mapping. If it is a stumbling block to you, rest assured that I do not confuse the two.
Buddha was God before he “died”. What did Jesus mean by this? “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Terms are worthless. Love is all that matters.
He walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead!
I still don’t see what was sacrificed. Some hours of suffering and a few days in the grave? What is that for God?
BLASPHEMY! Now you’ve gone too far. Say what you will about God and Jesus, but don’t deny the existence of infinity. (I believe that question of whether the universe is finite or infinite in size is not decided.)
Um, pardon me pointing out the obvious, but you’re forgetting that there are consequences for not giving that love freely - namely, Hell. Divine Weasel strikes again.
Esprix
You said the fall of man wasn’t described in the Old Testament, didn’t you?
Neither does the Christian teaching regarding Original Sin. In fact, I explained what it was back on page 1, so I don’t know why you think I’d be implying something else.
That isn’t the most charitable understanding, and it glosses things over a bit. If a man is not born in Eden, it is because his parents are not in Eden. If he wants to go to Eden, he has to go there. Original Sin has corrupted man’s Original Justice and Original Holiness. So he may not know how to get there, and even if the way is revealed to him he still has to deal with the fallen state of mankind. But, Jesus’s death and resurrection demonstrate to Christians that there is nothing to fear.
Indeed? Then why are the Jews awaiting a messiah if not to restore God’s kingdom? Nothing good on TV? I admit I skipped to the end after the first few chapters. Are you under the impression that we are living in Eden?
Even if there is nothing in the OT about a messiah, to claim the ancient society which authored this book did not expect a messiah to come seems rather farfetched from everything I know.
I don’t know. I’m talking about the coptic Gospel of Thomas, which I linked to previously. You might be thinking of another manuscript. I do vaguely recall one that reads sort of like a DC comic book with Jesus flying around and whatnot, (perhaps written by a teenager around 300AD?), but I haven’t read it.
I was only trying to demonstrate that the idea of the reversal of the fall portrayed in Genesis has been a part of Christian teaching since the earliest known days. Some nut in Montana might be writing his own Gospel right now. That doesn’t negate ones popular in the early church.
But according to Jesus, anyone who has faith in him will do the works which he did, and even greater ones than he did. Jesus apparently didn’t think there was anything super-human about his abilities if he thought anyone could levitate trees and move mountains and the like.
waterj2
Except he didn’t die. Not for long, anyhow. According to Lib, his expression of love was the creation of us in the first place, with little pieces of God. The bodily crucifixion does not appear to be any big mondo sacrifice in Lib’s theology, if I understand it correctly; God’s suffering was divvying Himself up and allowing sinners to “kill” the little pieces of Him. In this case, Christ’s actual physical crucifixion and ressurrection appears to me to be primarily of symbolic import, and not strictly necessary (as traditional Christianity usually claims). God had already died (or pieces of Him, anyhoo) for our sins–It is not that He kills Himself to allow Him to forgive our sins, but that those who sin kill part of Him. Is this correct, Lib?
Esprix:
Wherever there is Love — True Love — it is given freely. You know this. It is in your own heart. Love is Alive.
That which a man hoards to himself, though he call it love, is something else. We suffer no consequences but those we desire. What does Jesus mean by this? “I do not judge you. Your judge yourselves by the words I speak.”
Well then I guess no one has gotten this “faith” thing right in 2000 years, as I haven’t seen any news reports of walking on water or such in quite some time. Should I be watching CNN more frequently?
Esprix
Gaudere:
Practically perfect.
Yes, yes, all very pleasant sentiments, but what of Hell? The Bible seems to be pretty clear about that.
Unless, of course, you’re a Universalist, which seems to be the case. Hell, I’d say you were a Christian UU, if you were looking for a label.
Esprix