Regarding heresy

[Thomas]

If every choice is allowed, then where is the measure of truth?

If we look at Christianity, the views are so diverse, and so contradictory, that if we accept them all, and strike out every element that does not carry the universal acknowledgement of all, then I am very much of the view that there would be nothing of any substance left.

As a master once said:
"Once the way of the Sufi was a Way without a name; today it is a name without a Way."
I think that rule would apply in this instance.

Thomas

 

[wil]

If every choice is allowed, then where is the measure of truth?

If we look at Christianity, the views are so diverse, and so contradictory, that if we accept them all, and strike out every element that does not carry the universal acknowledgement of all, then I am very much of the view that there would be nothing of any substance left.

As a master once said:
"Once the way of the Sufi was a Way without a name; today it is a name without a Way."
I think that rule would apply in this instance.

Namaste Thomas, I would wonder who that master might be...seems he probably wasn't Sufi, or was no longer Sufi. I think many who have left Christianity or Catholicism would have the same to say...but I doubt anyone who was currently in that belief system would call them masters.

I'm not going as far to say Christianity was railroaded in one direction so many years ago...but there was an attempt to hogtie it. After Jesus was gone and Paul began his interpretation and then the gospels and other books were written...in those ensuing decades exactly what you describe occurred (according to what I am aware). There were many that thought Paul was on the wrong track, and as indicated there were many tracks being taken...all of which lead upto a group getting together to 'decide' based on their emminent opinion what was right, what was gospel, and how things should be done.

Since then there were some who never came into that fold...and others who walked away as they deemed that the church interpretaton was incorrect.

Heretics pure and simple seem to mean those that say they believe in the same thing as me but I say they don't...vs. those other lost souls who are simply not even on my path at all.

This heretic thinks we are all on the same path, and we will all get there, no matter how many lives it takes.

 

[Ciel]

If every choice is allowed, then where is the measure of truth?

Thomas

Thomas,

The measure of truth is in the God given choice.

And hopefully that humanity shall come to the point where reason meets wisdom in the knowing, all is one when we aspire to see beyond rules and regulations written by the hand of man as God's hand, when man himself is in a spiritual evolutionary process, forever changing to aclime himself to the present and future. The way it was can never be the way it is, or it is a dead way. The real spirituality is the life of this moment. closing the eyes, emptying the mind, God has a space to be.

peace - c -

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Wil beat me to the punch on this one. I appreciate very much what Thomas is saying, yet I can also see other sects / denominations saying effectively the same thing. Therein lies the rub...which one is right? Are any of them correct? How much truth is left after we filter out "the traditions of men" that have been heaped on top of the teachings over the course of two millenia?

I guess where I am most likely misunderstood, is not that I espouse this or that way, frankly I don't espouse any particular way. If it will be to my detriment, at least I will answer for myself to my G-d. But for me to surrender to any *tradition* would be to me at this point in my walk, simply unthinkable. It would crush my spirit.

But this is *my* walk, and ultimately, that is my point. I am not standing against anybody...if a person finds solace and help in a particular brand of faith, more power to them! I sincerely wish them well. As many gripes as I may have against the power structure of the institutions of any particular brand of faith; I have met loving, generous, kind, even G-d fearing individuals living lives exemplified by Christ abiding in those same brands of faith. I have had the pleasure of meeting people of all walks of life that lead their lives in admirable ways, if not totally then at least in dominant part.

My being a "hairy tick" has to do with being a torn in the back side of those who assume an arrogant air of superiority and look down their noses at others in judgement. If doing unto others holds any merit at all, then I am only too happy to treat these types as they have shown they desire to be treated. Like fire, arrogance must be met with arrogance. Anything less is surrender. And that's just not acceptable.

Thankfully, Thomas, you are not one of these I speak of.

 

[flowperson]

I'm with you all on this one. If the way is narrow and difficult for each of us, as taught by Jesus, that doesn't necessarily mean that all must be the same or similar. It just means to me that we are all unique in our heartfelt thoughts and prayers, and that the narrow ways are uniquely open to all who are sincere. My opinion is that those who adequately negotiate the ways, the labyrinths, will all end up in the same or similar spiritual places if they are sincere. Does that make any sense to you?

I know, Thomas, that this does not provide for "truth" as you noted, but it does provide for true outcomes based upon the sincerity of the navigators. Human life would have been so boring if we had been all made the same, so I guess I'm saying that our spiritual journeys should of necessity be diverse in reflection of our individual natures. Sincere belief is what knits us all into a whole cloth

flow....

 

[wil]

I think it somehow has to do with suffering...if you aren't following the Buddha way...if you aren't suffering with me...than you are taking this easy road...and I've been taught the only road is the hard road...

ie Islam pray 5 times a day, make sure you are clean before you pray..fast during Ramadan...make the pilgrimage...if you don't do all these things and more...you are a heretic.

or confession, doing pennance, church on sunday, swear to me that Jesus is the only saviour of the world and you have accepted him...or you aren't Christian you are a heretic and headed to hell.

I've joined this club, these are the rules, abide or step aside....we are all are doing it and you must as well...or you are a heretic.

If you've got one of them there multi religious symbols around your neck... you might be a heretic.

If you claim to be Christian but say Namaste....you might be a heretic.

If you don't know what direction Mecca is...you might be a heretic.

If you don't know what time the sun sets tonight...you might be a heretic.

If you eat the sacred cow, especially with cheese...you might be a heretic.

If you read that book, date that woman, step one foot in that den of inequity...you might be a heretic.

If you ever agree with wil on anything....you might be a heretic.

(the problem is once every 2000 words he makes some sense....but it could just be sarcasm or gas...cause he's a heretic)

Have I told you guys and gals how much I love you!

 

[seattlegal]

If every choice is allowed, then where is the measure of truth?

Well, since our knowledge is by no means complete, then our judgement of truth based soley on knowledge would also be incomplete.

I like Jesus's words:

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

...and the words at 1 John 4

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

 

[Thomas]

As G.K. Chesterton said, "There's two kinds of people, those who have a creed and know it, and those who have a creed and don't know it."

I'm sorry ... the underlying trend of the responses is that Christianity is dogmatic and overbearing, etc, and to follow it would necessarily limit one's personal freedom to be and do as one wills ... it's a human response.

... but that is the whole point ... and whilst we all have our favourite bits of 'feelgood Christianity' by which to justify ourselves in who we are and what we do ... the fact remains that there was no-one more dogmatic, more demanding and more critical than Christ, no-one more outspoken that we are sick and need help, and left to our own devices will willsurely fail:

"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

"... and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men."
Matthew 15:6-9

Now many might reply, "ah, but, the teaching of the church ..." which is a spurious argument ... without the Church you would have nothing.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

Can we, outside of this church, guarantee that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us – I don't think so.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:19

Was this then given to everyone? Again – No.

Might I repeat that a Buddhist is not a heretic, a pagan is not a heretic, an athiest is not a heretic ... but someone who says they are a Christian and then determines their own 'brand' or their own interpretation of Scripture, is, by the vdery definition of the word, a heretic.

+++

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

As G.K. Chesterton said, "There's two kinds of people, those who have a creed and know it, and those who have a creed and don't know it."

Chesterton is a pretty smart cookie. However, there are a few different *formal* creeds out there, and I would surmise that there are more than a few informal creeds not quite spelled out. Which opens its own can o' worms, but this points towards the "pick 'n' choose" of which you mention.

I'm sorry ... the underlying trend of the responses is that Christianity is dogmatic and overbearing, etc, and to follow it would necessarily limit one's personal freedom to be and do as one wills ... it's a human response.

I don't disagree. However...

... but that is the whole point ... and whilst we all have our favourite bits of 'feelgood Christianity' by which to justify ourselves in who we are and what we do ... the fact remains that there was no-one more dogmatic, more demanding and more critical than Christ, no-one more outspoken that we are sick and need help, and left to our own devices will willsurely fail:

Left to our own devices, picking and choosing the feelgood parts...yes, I agree. But where I have issues is with those "dogmatic" parts that were added, after the fact, not by Messiah but by the various institutions *acting posthumously in the name of* Messiah.

"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

Indeed. Jesus *points* the way. Not the church, no matter how well meaning its scholars.

"... and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men."
Matthew 15:6-9

Ummm, I love you like a brother Thomas, but my instinctive thoughts surrounding this verse are not very polite towards the institution you represent. Please take this in the loving spirit it is sent...what is the confessional, if the penitent goes right back out to do the same *sin* the very next day? I have never seen the sense, or necessity, of confessing to other men, no matter their purported station or status. And confession to G-d without contrition, is as no confession at all. I'm sorry, but there are many traditions of men built into the various church systems, and the older the system, the more traditions get heaped on top of Jesus' teachings. And Jesus was quite adamant about one thing if nothing else in dealing with the scribes and pharisees...to *do away with the traditions of men.*

Now many might reply, "ah, but, the teaching of the church ..." which is a spurious argument ... without the Church you would have nothing.

I disagree. I still have Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, John, and the entire Old Testament, without the fluff and filters of a systematic institution wrought with the frailties of fallible humans. Notice, *my beef is not that the Book is written by fallible humans,* but that the institutions built upon the Book are wrought by fallible humans.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

Petra, pebble...whereas Jesus is the *chief* cornerstone. Petros, as I recall.

Can we, outside of this church, guarantee that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us – I don't think so.

Of course, the shepherd who leads his flock in the wrong direction is guilty of the gravest sin short of the unmentionable one. My concern is not prevailing against hell with the church, my concern is prevailing against hell with my Messiah. No institution will save me, my salvation is contigent upon myself and my intercourse with G-d...same as everybody else, church notwithstanding.

(And the cynic in me says nothing in life is guaranteed, I'm merely hedging my bet...)

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew 16:19

With the inescapable caveat that one *must first* be fully and completely within the will of G-d the Father. No exceptions. Nothing about church there...

Was this then given to everyone? Again – No.

How many of us walk fully and completely within the will of the Father? Even for a marked length of time? Even by attending church "religiously?" I sure don't... And not trying to be judgemental, but I've known some regular churchgoers that were anything but walking fully and completely as the Father would intend. (Some even in the pulpit!)

Now, in fairness, I have also known people who tried the very best they knew how within the parameters that they understood. In the spirit of forgiveness, how can such a person be faulted?

Might I repeat that a Buddhist is not a heretic, a pagan is not a heretic, an athiest is not a heretic

Perhaps the difference is semantic, but I *have* heard the term used, frequently, to describe these you mention. Properly or no, it is the way it is.

... but someone who says they are a Christian and then determines their own 'brand' or their own interpretation of Scripture, is, by the vdery definition of the word, a heretic.

Well, considering the source of the word, and who historically used it with a vengeance (pun fully intended), perhaps what you say is true. Here in this forum specifically, and perhaps in a more general sense in the world at large, I see it being used somewhat facetiously, for the levity aspect. I also sense the *embracing* of a derogatory term, to remove the sting.

I do not disagree with you about smorgasbord religion, picking and choosing what feels good and discarding what is fashionably distasteful. However, where we do not agree, is that I see a mound of fallibly human teachings piled on top of the precious teachings of Jesus. I can only guess the reasons, but my heresy is in removing these layers of tarnish, just like Messiah taught me to do. I would rather have the root teachings, good, bad and distasteful, than a mountain of trappings and adorations and stained glass and candles that have no bearing on my salvation, and only serve to keep me in bondage and submission. Submission not to my Heavenly Father, but to other men and institutions.

My two cents, with which you and others are fully free to disagree.

Entirely sent in brotherly love.

 

[Thomas]

Hi, my brother juantoo3 –

My two cents, with which you and others are fully free to disagree.

And on which points, no doubt, you will know. But received in like kind and with good humour!

I do not disagree with you about smorgasbord religion, picking and choosing what feels good and discarding what is fashionably distasteful.

That is my main point.

What many might be unaware of is the origins of their present philosophical outlook. The New Age, for example, can be traced back through the 60's to the Romance movement of the late nineteenth century, a reaction to the dehumanising aspects of industrailism (the current idealised notion of 'faeries' was fabricated around this time, for example). So when I argue with an individual, I am arguing with a mindset resulting from an historical process which was itself flawed.

Cultural Relativism goes back to the Enlightenment.

However, where we do not agree, is that I see a mound of fallibly human teachings piled on top of the precious teachings of Jesus.

Ity's notable perhaps that Catholic doctrine is always promulgated in response to a question or, worse, an error. The function of doctrine is to explain and clarify, not simply to add things for the sake of it.

Indeed. Jesus *points* the way. Not the church, no matter how well meaning its scholars.
But the point is that Scripture is not the Word of Jesus, it is the Testimony of the Apostles on hearing the Word (in fact, Jesus never said to write any of it down) – so my argument would be that what you know of Jesus is through the Tradition of the Church – of a Truth made known to them, and to them was entrusted its transmission to posterity.

Thomas

 

[wil]

But the point is that Scripture is not the Word of Jesus, it is the Testimony of the Apostles on hearing the Word (in fact, Jesus never said to write any of it down) – so my argument would be that what you know of Jesus is through the Tradition of the Church – of a Truth made known to them, and to them was entrusted its transmission to posterity.

And herin lies the issue.

a. the church can't take credit for what was written as the church didn't write it (at least I hope not)
b. for the past 1700 years most Christians have been relegated to the bible, the group of books that the church decided to cannonize as the be all and end all of the works and teachings of Judaism and early Christian thought that was out there. 66 books out of hundreds
c. the church then went onto illiminate what they deemed heresy wherever they could find it.

So today's world did not entrust this transmission to posterity...it is what we are left with, and now we must dig it out.

The most interesting part is every 'church' member I know personally, physically (not virtually) to a person raised in the schools and the tradition claim they never cracked the binding of a bible...they were given other papers and books that provided quotes, stories and interpretations...but it wasn't till they left the church they started reading the bible...

 

[Dondi]

Thomas,

As I've studied the Catholic tradition, I come away overwhelmed. I would that people would draw closer to the Lord. But I have known many Catholics in my life that seem to have a marginal form of spirituality. They go to church, they go to confession, but they play the devil the rest of the week, drinking, gambling, cursing, etc. But it seems that they hide behind the doors of the Church as if the Church affords them some sort of immunity. And for the most part, they are ignorant on scriptures.

I teach a Friday night teen bible study where I have the unique opportunity in which several members of a local Catholic church and several members of a local Baptist church attend. I started at the very beginning with Genesis and taking time to teach the class about the major biblical characters of the Bible.

At the beginning of each study, I have them play biblically centered games and I can tell you that in a majority of cases, the Baptist teens fair better than the Catholic teens. It is apparent that the Catholic kids do not have a through understanding of scriptures, even though a majority of them go to Catholic schools. I wonder what they are being taught.

Now, I've read some of the catachism that the Church espouses. And they seem more geared to learning the traditions of the Church, rather than exegesis of biblical doctrines.

While it may seem that I'm busting on the Catholic Church, I do not do so without warrant, for I love the teens in my bible study. Most do not seem confident that they can have a relationship with God or that they are assured they are going to heaven. Many believe that they need to be good enough to get to heaven, without having a proper understanding of Grace through the Lord Jesus Christ. Not even a Catholic understanding of the concept, which sees grace enacted in the sacraments.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding this. Frankly, I see the rituals and sacraments rather mechanical, that if you just go through the motions, your good to go. It seems like a lot of hoops one must jump through to get to God. But it almost seems that all these hoops defeats the purpose of having an intimate relationship with God. If we are taught that we need to go through priests, angels, and Mary to get to God, where is the intimacy in that? Seems like a lot of middle man to me.

Of course, it may be that I'm just looking at it from the outside. So what do I know?

 

[seattlegal]

Thomas,

As I've studied the Catholic tradition, I come away overwhelmed. I would that people would draw closer to the Lord. But I have known many Catholics in my life that seem to have a marginal form of spirituality. They go to church, they go to confession, but they play the devil the rest of the week, drinking, gambling, cursing, etc. But it seems that they hide behind the doors of the Church as if the Church affords them some sort of immunity. And for the most part, they are ignorant on scriptures.

It brings to mind what John the Baptist said in Matthew chapter 3.

I do like the part about God being able to raise "Children of Abraham" from "these stones," however, especially when you compare it to 2 Peter 2:5, with Christians being identified as "living stones" that build up the "Spiritual house."

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi –

But I have known many Catholics in my life that seem to have a marginal form of spirituality. They go to church, they go to confession, but they play the devil the rest of the week, drinking, gambling, cursing, etc. But it seems that they hide behind the doors of the Church as if the Church affords them some sort of immunity. And for the most part, they are ignorant on scriptures.
Agreed. That's not really an argument for or against Catholicism though, is it? That's about people. I've met saints and sinners of every stripe.

It is apparent that the Catholic kids do not have a through understanding of scriptures, even though a majority of them go to Catholic schools. I wonder what they are being taught.
I think that's true. It's an historical problem which we are trying tp put right, but it will take a good few years ... it's a result of the 'sola scriptura' debate, among other things.

It is a fundamental error, and we would say common sense tells us otherwise, that because one can read Scripture, one understands what is written. In no other field do people assume such a degree of expertise, than in reading Scripture – an expertise based solely on the fact that they can read.

The Church has had to defend its position as Interpreter of Scripture because of the Reformation, so there might seem an imbalance in that regard. Also, if people do not accept that Scripture is often significantly deeper than 'face value' - with all its apparent contradictions - then there's not much we can say.

Now, I've read some of the catachism that the Church espouses. And they seem more geared to learning the traditions of the Church, rather than exegesis of biblical doctrines.
That's probably right – but then Catholicism is Scripture and Tradition.

Most do not seem confident that they can have a relationship with God or that they are assured they are going to heaven. Many believe that they need to be good enough to get to heaven, without having a proper understanding of Grace through the Lord Jesus Christ. Not even a Catholic understanding of the concept, which sees grace enacted in the sacraments.
Understanding doesn't get you to heaven, faith does.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding this. Frankly, I see the rituals and sacraments rather mechanical, that if you just go through the motions, your good to go.
No. The 'problem' with the Sacramewnts is that they cannot be quantified, there is no immediate and noticable benefit to be had, like there is from, say, meditation or yoga.

They are like prayer - they operate beyond the ken of the rational being.

It seems like a lot of hoops one must jump through to get to God. But it almost seems that all these hoops defeats the purpose of having an intimate relationship with God. If we are taught that we need to go through priests, angels, and Mary to get to God, where is the intimacy in that? Seems like a lot of middle man to me.
Many people express an 'intimate relationship with God' which is nothing more than an intimate relationship with their own egos.

I would also suggest ther's more to an 'intimate relationship with God' than meets the eye, especially when we are so professed at deluding ourselves as to who God is, or what God wants, or what God is obliged to put up with.

The role of priest is teacher and guide. Angels, Mary, saints, etc. are intercessors, not mediators or middle-men.

Of course, it may be that I'm just looking at it from the outside. So what do I know?
Well, this is always a problem...

... but I think we're well off the track of heresy. You teach a bible class. I assume you do so under some kind of authority? Or at least some commonality of teaching? The parents have a good idea of the message you're putting across? What happens when someone says, "No, Jesus was bisexual, married to the Magdalene and in a gay relationship with John." ... what then?

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

Agreed. That's not really an argument for or against Catholicism though, is it? That's about people. I've met saints and sinners of every stripe.

You're right. I'm sure there are upstanding Catholics in every parish. But I'm wondering what kind of convictions in general people have in regards to their way of life. How do the leaders of the Church emphasize godly living? I can only observe what I see in Catholics that I know.

Understanding doesn't get you to heaven, faith does.

Yes, but the bible also says that the people perish for a lack of knowledge. It also says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

No. The 'problem' with the Sacramewnts is that they cannot be quantified, there is no immediate and noticable benefit to be had, like there is from, say, meditation or yoga.

They are like prayer - they operate beyond the ken of the rational being.

Aren't the Sacraments intended to draw one closer to God? If there is no immediate effect on the parishner, what good does it do?

To be fair, though, I've seen altar calls in some Protestant church (especially Pentacostal/Charasmatic) where people come week after week seeking forgiveness from God and change in their life, yet seem to be there every week for the same thing. It's almost like they seek some "spiritual cocktail", yet they face the same problems week after week.

Confession and forgiveness might cleanse the soul, but it does little to change the heart. That can only come from humble obedience to God, which I think God prefers. "...to obey is better than sacrifice..."

Many people express an 'intimate relationship with God' which is nothing more than an intimate relationship with their own egos.

I would also suggest ther's more to an 'intimate relationship with God' than meets the eye, especially when we are so professed at deluding ourselves as to who God is, or what God wants, or what God is obliged to put up with.

Hmmm...."an intimate relationship with their own egos" Perhaps you could expound on this.

And as far as knowing who God is, well, as I've said, "....the people perish...."
I find it interesting that Jesus defines eternal life as this:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3


The role of priest is teacher and guide. Angels, Mary, saints, etc. are intercessors, not mediators or middle-men.

Why then go to confession before a priest? Or why need to say the Rosary or pray to St.Jude five times and pass it on to ten people? Why not just go to God through Christ everytime?

Well, this is always a problem...

... but I think we're well off the track of heresy. You teach a bible class. I assume you do so under some kind of authority? Or at least some commonality of teaching? The parents have a good idea of the message you're putting across? What happens when someone says, "No, Jesus was bisexual, married to the Magdalene and in a gay relationship with John." ... what then?

My "authority" is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. I pray that God enlightens my understanding of scripture as I teach it. I pray for all the teens in my class that God will open there eyes to the reality of the Word of God, that they will learn and apply the things they are taught.

The parents have there own bible study upstairs with a fellow church member of mine.

As far as your theoretical, it is plain from Scriptures that Jesus wasn't gay nor was He married to Mary Magdeline.

If He was gay, then He is going against the Law (see Leviticus 18:22) and the natural order of things God placed in Creation.

I don't think it would have made much sense for Jesus to get married. It wasn't His mission. For one, He came here to die for the sins of the world, not to raise a family. It would have been irresponsible to marry and have kids, only to die at the age of 33. More to the point, the church is the Bride of Christ (see Ephesians 5:22-32, Rev 19:9, 21;19, 22:19).

 

[wil]

... but I think we're well off the track of heresy. You teach a bible class. I assume you do so under some kind of authority? Or at least some commonality of teaching? The parents have a good idea of the message you're putting across? What happens when someone says, "No, Jesus was bisexual, married to the Magdalene and in a gay relationship with John." ... what then?

Great question and totally at the heart of the discussion.

Most appear to have their level of what is heretical...and that boundary lies just below their level of 'orthodoxy'.

In my case when confronted with a question like you proposed whether from the adults or teens I deal with is...

'This is a perfect opportunity to explore that, and I am glad you brought that up, we don't have the time or information in this class, but if you'll do your research, and I'll do mine...Anyone else want to get involved in this?..Ok let's set a date when we will have our information compiled and we'll make this a class topic. Do you think we ought to email some of the information we are bringing so everyone can be upto speed prior to class?'

 

[Saltmeister]

But I have known many Catholics in my life that seem to have a marginal form of spirituality. They go to church, they go to confession, but they play the devil the rest of the week, drinking, gambling, cursing, etc. But it seems that they hide behind the doors of the Church as if the Church affords them some sort of immunity. And for the most part, they are ignorant on scriptures.

The Baptist teens fair better than the Catholic teens. It is apparent that the Catholic kids do not have a through understanding of scriptures, even though a majority of them go to Catholic schools. I wonder what they are being taught.

Now, I've read some of the catachism that the Church espouses. And they seem more geared to learning the traditions of the Church, rather than exegesis of biblical doctrines.

Well, I guess even if the Catholics are poor at understanding Christianity, you find ignorance in all groups of Christians across the denominations. There is this attitude that "I know what Christianity is about, I don't really need to study it."

There are Muslims who at least appear to know more about the Bible than Christians.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding this. Frankly, I see the rituals and sacraments rather mechanical, that if you just go through the motions, your good to go. It seems like a lot of hoops one must jump through to get to God. But it almost seems that all these hoops defeats the purpose of having an intimate relationship with God. If we are taught that we need to go through priests, angels, and Mary to get to God, where is the intimacy in that? Seems like a lot of middle man to me.

But . . . then again, similar things happen in other churches/denominations where there is this "copy cat" or "follow the leader" mentality where people who attend church simply do what their leaders on the pulpit/stage/raised platform/speaker on the microphone tell them.

How many of us try to figure it out for ourselves? How many of us believe we can't do better than following the formulas given to us by others?

Regarding what Seattlegal said, how many of us try to discover our place in God's spiritual temple?

Many people express an 'intimate relationship with God' which is nothing more than an intimate relationship with their own egos.

I would also suggest ther's more to an 'intimate relationship with God' than meets the eye, especially when we are so professed at deluding ourselves as to who God is, or what God wants, or what God is obliged to put up with.

The role of priest is teacher and guide. Angels, Mary, saints, etc. are intercessors, not mediators or middle-men.

But here's the problem -- How can one know if by seeking wisdom from these angels and saints, we are actually seeking an intimate relationship with their egos and not God?

If our egos are a stumbling block and inhibit us from seeing God, then I'd have to conclude that it's impossible to reach God because our lives are driven by our egos. What do we do? How can God help us with this problem? But God must somehow have a way of reaching us despite our need to fulfil our egos.

I don't think of Christianity as a religion about intercession. It's about signposts. Jesus was the first signpost. After him came the saints and the apostles. They shared Christ. They shared their journeys. They shared their personalities, life experiences and identities. People followed their example, pursuing their own identities, to find the place where they belonged in the spiritual temple mentioned in 2 Peter 2:5.

The signposts moved on. Other signposts were set up. These signposts met other signposts. Then all the signposts walked together arm in arm, pursuing the same goal. These signposts met more people and turned them into signposts.

Just a thought on egos.

I don't believe it's always "egotistical" to pursue one's individual identity. It may be seen as selfish, but not always "wrong." We all have an individual identity. Christianity, though isn't just about individuals, but also about community. As Christians from all around the world, we have a collective identity.

I think the question is whether we pursue this identity without concern for others, and only ourselves. If our pursuit of this "identity" is a self-absorbed obsession, then I would say that it is "egotistical" in the sense that our path is unilateral and we are "going it alone." We are not interested in how our life contributes to the collective identity of Christians around the world. Or perhaps we're just out there to impress people with our fancy words? If in our pursuit of our identity we are submitting to what we believe is our unique place in the collective identity of Christians around the world then that selfishness is not self-absorbed and unilateral, let alone egotistical.

I agree that pursuing one's identity is "selfish" but not necessarily egotistical in the sense that it's not always unilateral (going it alone) and self-absorbed. It may be someone saying, "God, this is my life. I believe this is what I need and what I believe you want from me. This is for you." What makes it non-egotistical is that it is personal and it is an act of devotion to God. It's a question of where the heart is.

Heresy may be thought of as dissent from the "collective identity" of Christians around the world, but I guess you'd also have to consider the fact that many churches model themselves on an "identity" that isn't centred on Christ. They may claim that so-and-so is a heretic on the basis that he/she had rebelled against that identity but since it's not the identity of Christ we can't really accuse them of "blaspheming" against Christianity.

That's the thing about heresy. It depends mostly on our perceptions. While the "heretic" may be wrong, it doesn't really help anyone if the "established authority" condemning the "heretic" doesn't know Christ any better. Calling someone a heretic helps nobody when Christianity itself is misunderstood. Ultimately, the purpose of Christianity is not a religion where you get people to follow a book of rules or get people to align themselves to your way of seeing things. The goal of Christianity is to be a signpost for people who know how to read your signs.

 

[Dondi]

I don't believe it's always "egotistical" to pursue one's individual identity. It may be seen as selfish, but not always "wrong." We all have an individual identity. Christianity, though isn't just about individuals, but also about community. As Christians from all around the world, we have a collective identity.

I think you bring out an excellent point. I think in pursuing our own identity, we would have to be found in Christ.

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." - Mark 8:35

The whole point of being in Christ is to actually look beyond our egos and find ourselves in the will of God. It is a battle of wills: our ego against the ego that God would have us conform to, that is Christ's. This is the First Commandment: Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

In the collective identity, we too are battling egos, but now we are up against our fellow believers. The binding force that brings us together is collectively being in Christ. This is the Second Commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself. The interesting thing here is how we love ourselves. well, that brings us back to the First Commandment. And the cycle goes on until we reach the potential set before us.

 

[wil]

There are Muslims who at least appear to know more about the Bible than Christians.

Oh my, brings back memories. A number of years ago teaching Sunday School, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders. One of the congregation brings in her granddaughters, her son's family was in town. Grandma was raised Baptist, she and her husband converted to Islam in the 60's, she came back to Christianity, as did one of her sons, the other son remained a Muslim, his daughters being raised Muslim, going to a religious school.

I took the opportunity to allow them to discuss their religion and practices. It became quickly apparent that they knew the bible stories better than our kids. At that age we were just leaving the story books and actually looking a little more at scripture...these kids knew the scriptural stories...not the edited picture book stories. Then they got into prayer and fasting quite enlightening for all.

I suppose in many circles allowing that discussion to happen would have been quite heretical.

 

[Dondi]

Oh my, brings back memories. A number of years ago teaching Sunday School, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders. One of the congregation brings in her granddaughters, her son's family was in town. Grandma was raised Baptist, she and her husband converted to Islam in the 60's, she came back to Christianity, as did one of her sons, the other son remained a Muslim, his daughters being raised Muslim, going to a religious school.

I took the opportunity to allow them to discuss their religion and practices. It became quickly apparent that they knew the bible stories better than our kids. At that age we were just leaving the story books and actually looking a little more at scripture...these kids knew the scriptural stories...not the edited picture book stories. Then they got into prayer and fasting quite enlightening for all.

I suppose in many circles allowing that discussion to happen would have been quite heretical.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." - Hosea 4:6

That is sad.