"The Path"

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Thank you for explaining. I think I see your point now. And we're probably not so far apart in our thinking as I thought. Or at least not where it regards the person and his teachings--the teachings are all we have of the person but the person shaped the teachings.

As for your argument that Christianity would be less divided if it built on the person rather than on the teachings, I don't know. I've never thought of it from that perspective. Post 14 in this thread shows another side of the argument i.e what happens when a community builds only on the person (or memory of the person) and disregards the teachings. Perhaps that might be called a personality cult?

I don't think it would be a cult if it was done properly.

A cult contains elements of mind control. It's where people align themselves to a common goal, the same principles and tenets. People who don't conform are ostracised and disdained.

Devotion to a personality doesn't have to be like that. It could be personal. You do it your way, I do it my way. If people are constantly reminded that it's something personal, that you do it your own way, then it wouldn't be a cult. You're not attached to some chain of command or hierarchy. You make your own baby steps, your own progress. It doesn't compromise or undermine your individuality or personality.

You could have magazines dedicated to it. There are magazines dedicated to Buddhism, mysticism and New Age that discuss the common goals of those religions. but that doesn't mean Buddhism, mysticism and New Age are cults. Common goals don't mean a religion is a cult. Likewise, devotion to a personality wouldn't be a cult. Cults have a group think element. Devotion to a personality could be personal without that group think element to it. Conformity is not enforced. You invited to participate but not urged to do it the way others do.

This sort of reminds me of the medieval practice of the devotion to the saints. These people were condemned as heretics because their devotion to the saints was seen as a kind of idolatry -- that it compromised and undermined the concept of the Messiah/Christ. I'm starting to think that it was more of a devotion to a personality -- that devotion to their deceased friends and relatives was really a devotion to Christ. The Messiah lived in their deceased friends and relatives. They had seen Christ in their deceased relations.

Their friends and relatives were a reminder of the Christ who had died and resurrected long ago. It was not a practice that undermined and compromised Christ, but one that acknowledged that he was a living, active entity, spiritually present in their loved ones. I would think that their practice wasn't heretical to Christianity, but actually reinforced their concept of Christianity. They saw personal truth in their dead relations. Jesus passed on his personal truths to his apostles. The apostles passed on their personal truths to their followers. Christians through the ages were supposed to pass on their personal truths through the generations. These "personal truths," passed on and shared from person to person were perhaps what was supposed to preserve Christianity. The Medieval Catholic Church turned Christianity into an "institutionalised" and "systematised" religion by condemning this practice.

I think maybe we've somehow condemned these people for an otherwise valid and legitimate practice. What Christians needed most was what we foolishly destroyed. We've been taught to despise and reject these people for what they did. I guess it's easy to tear down something we don't understand. When we finally understand it, it's too late. The damage has been done!!! That's why I think all the divisions and factions in today's Christian world would be solved by devotion to a personality rather than teachings.

This is just an idea I came up with while I was writing all this. I might be wrong about its legitimacy, but what if this was the way Christianity was always meant to be practiced/exercised/followed/passed on?

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I don't think it would be a cult if it was done properly.

A cult contains elements of mind control. It's where people align themselves to a common goal, the same principles and tenets. People who don't conform are ostracised and disdained.

Devotion to a personality doesn't have to be like that. It could be personal. You do it your way, I do it my way. If people are constantly reminded that it's something personal, that you do it your own way, then it wouldn't be a cult. You're not attached to some chain of command or hierarchy. You make your own baby steps, your own progress. It doesn't compromise or undermine your individuality or personality.

You could have magazines dedicated to it. There are magazines dedicated to Buddhism, mysticism and New Age that discuss the common goals of those religions. but that doesn't mean Buddhism, mysticism and New Age are cults. Common goals don't mean a religion is a cult. Likewise, devotion to a personality wouldn't be a cult. Cults have a group think element. Devotion to a personality could be personal without that group think element to it. Conformity is not enforced. You invited to participate but not urged to do it the way others do.

This sort of reminds me of the medieval practice of the devotion to the saints. These people were condemned as heretics because their devotion to the saints was seen as a kind of idolatry -- that it compromised and undermined the concept of the Messiah/Christ. I'm starting to think that it was more of a devotion to a personality -- that devotion to their deceased friends and relatives was really a devotion to Christ. The Messiah lived in their deceased friends and relatives. They had seen Christ in their deceased relations.

Their friends and relatives were a reminder of the Christ who had died and resurrected long ago. It was not a practice that undermined and compromised Christ, but one that acknowledged that he was a living, active entity, spiritually present in their loved ones. I would think that their practice wasn't heretical to Christianity, but actually reinforced their concept of Christianity. They saw personal truth in their dead relations. Jesus passed on his personal truths to his apostles. The apostles passed on their personal truths to their followers. Christians through the ages were supposed to pass on their personal truths through the generations. These "personal truths," passed on and shared from person to person were perhaps what was supposed to preserve Christianity. The Medieval Catholic Church turned Christianity into an "institutionalised" and "systematised" religion by condemning this practice.

I think maybe we've somehow condemned these people for an otherwise valid and legitimate practice. What Christians needed most was what we foolishly destroyed. We've been taught to despise and reject these people for what they did. I guess it's easy to tear down something we don't understand. When we finally understand it, it's too late. The damage has been done!!! That's why I think all the divisions and factions in today's Christian world would be solved by devotion to a personality rather than teachings.

This is just an idea I came up with while I was writing all this. I might be wrong about its legitimacy, but what if this was the way Christianity was always meant to be practiced/exercised/followed/passed on?

I think you have a point, but at the same time, I don't think you can separate the person from his teachings.

[enton]

Will you keep to the old path that evil men have trod? JOB 22:15 (NIV)

Who asked that kind of question? It was Eliphaz.
Now I am not Job, but let me answer!!! I will keep to the old path and this path is not the path trodden by the evil men. Why? Because Jeremiah 6:16 says so:

This is what the LORD says:"Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Those evil who hear that statement of the LORD will surely reject the old path.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Enton, welcome to CR!