The Conundrum of Christianity

[Audacia]

This morning, while at Mass at my local church, I carefully listened to my priest give the homily. He reflected on today’s readings and what they tell us about rules, regulations, and the law. Let me give you a quick background on the readings. The First Reading was from Nehemiah, in which Ezra reads God’s law to the people of Israel. They weep because they realize their disobedience before the law and view themselves as unworthy children of God. Ezra instructs them not to weep, but to be filled with joy at the rules God has laid before them. The Second Reading was from 1 Corinthians, in which Paul speaks about the various parts of the human body. He states that the ear is not superior to the eye, just as the eye is not superior to the foot. The parts of the body are equal, Paul claims, though they perform separate and unique functions. Paul then draws a comparison between the human body and the Christian church.

My priest began the homily by making a surprising claim. The commandments, the rules, and the regulations found in the Bible can often times be foreboding and difficult to follow, he told us. Sometimes, he continued, we find ourselves feeling like Ezra’s audience of unworthy sinners. He went on to say that God’s law should not frighten us. Like Ezra, he claimed that instead, it should fill us with joy. I was somewhat confused by my otherwise strictly conservative priest telling his audience that God’s law should make us happy. I thought that perhaps he would soon make a profound, unorthodox sentiment that I could cheerfully agree with. Liberal Roman Catholic priests are few and far between. Conservatives opposed to the Second Vatican Council, which took a serious step toward modernizing the Catholic Church, generally dictate church doctrine. My priest is a member of the conservative faction. He insists on singing the new responses at Mass in a dreadfully monotonous tone all too similar to that of a Gregorian chant. For him to even mildly suggest that the commandments shouldn’t fill us with fear was a big step. He was so close.

He then proceeded to tell his audience that the strict moral guidelines found in the Bible can make us happy if we stringently follow them. He declared that some of the happiest people he knows are monks that live in a secluded monastery, have dietary restrictions, and take vows of silence. He said that often times, those that feel unworthy for failing to adhere to God’s law do not properly examine their own sins and instead find fault with the teachings of the church and even the Bible. Although we may at times see ourselves as unworthy, my priest affirmed, giving our best effort to abide to God’s commands will certainly bring us joy. I cringed in my seat. But that was not all.

He continued his defense of God’s law by referencing the Second Reading. While the parts of the body are equal, he stated, sometimes they become diseased and need God’s care. He then began talking about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I struggled to listen to the rest of the homily. No, I thought to myself, this is not what Jesus wants. This is not what Christianity, what Jesus’ message, is all about. This is the conundrum with Christianity.

We, as humans, love rules. We absolutely adore strict social guidelines that govern our lives. We are terrified of chaos, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to avoid it. Without law, we firmly believe we would live horrific lives of barbarism and be knocked from our pedestal of “civilization” that separates us from all other beings. Of course, we believe all of this in the abstract. When it comes down to making actual choices, we relish breaking the rules we created. Christianity reflects the human race’s adoration of rules and regulations. It survives on the doctrine that governs its followers. Each and every Christian religious institution has created countless rules, rules that often times dictate nearly every aspect of our lives. Without rules and regulations, Christian leaders wield no power.

And yet, Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus. Christian leaders need to only read the New Testament to realize the conundrum of their own faith. Jesus defied social doctrine. He associated himself with the outcasts of society. He surrounded himself with lepers, cripples, and even prostitutes. He accepted these people as individual children of God. He loved them. In fact, he enjoyed their company more than the Jewish religious leaders who were constantly questioning his actions. Better yet, Jesus denounced the strict codes of conduct by which the Pharisees and Sadducees instructed others to live their lives. He knew that the religious leaders only abided by God’s law because of the power it gave them over the Jewish populace. He also understood that their endless rules were trivial compared to what Jesus claimed was the most important rule of all.

Love. Jesus taught that to love was the only commandment his followers needed to abide by. Love is the foundation for all acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity. If we love one another, we need not worry about coveting thy neighbor’s goods or what foods we eat. Christian leaders underestimate the immense power of love. They formulate strict guidelines meant to achieve ideals that are insignificant compared to what can be accomplished with love. Instead, they should look at the example of Jesus and understand that he loved everyone. If Jesus were here on this Earth in the flesh at this very moment, would he would shun homosexuals and refuse their love? Or would he embrace heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and everyone else on this planet that would flock to him?

The law of love doesn’t just apply to Christians, either. Non-Christians, even non-believers, can improve their lives and the lives of others by expressing love. Love is universal and accepted by all of humanity. Part of why so many non-believers are turned off by the idea of God or religion is because of this conundrum in Christianity. How can a religious movement founded upon the teachings of a poor, pacifist rabbi that denounced organized religion and accepted the lowest people of society restrict its followers by creating so many secular rules? It simply doesn’t make any sense.

Following strict moral guidelines might make us happy. We might find joy in living a life dictated by rules and regulations. I find it easier to believe that a life filled with love, a life in which we love one another despite our differences, would make us much happier. If we live our lives making each decision with love in mind, how can we go wrong? That’s not to say there are complex moral issues that require thoughtful reflection and contemplation. Perhaps, however, rather than looking to the book of Leviticus or Deuteronomy for our answers, we should try and think of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps we should do what feels right rather than do what we think the Bible says is right. I don’t have all the answers, and I certainly don’t think any other person or institution has them either. I do know, however, that God’s law, the singular law of love, can most certainly fill us with joy.

[Himster]

Well that's lovely, but "not looking to the book of Leviticus or Deuteronomy" doesn't make them disappear. Jesus said "love they neighbor" but he also said "I come not to abolish the law", to an outsider these seem completely irreconcilable, it's not a particularly satisfactory solution to simply ignore the part(s) you don't like.

It simply doesn’t make any sense

Amen brother.

[Audacia]

Well that's lovely, but "not looking to the book of Leviticus or Deuteronomy" doesn't make them disappear. Jesus said "love they neighbor" but he also said "I come not to abolish the law", to an outsider these seem completely irreconcilable, it's not a particularly satisfactory solution to simply ignore the part(s) you don't like.



Amen brother.

I fully agree with what you're saying, and apologize if how I phrased that particular sentence suggests that I think that we should ignore books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy. However, I do believe that certain religious factions point to books like that in response to critique of their rules and regulations. Furthermore, I do disagree with some of the sentiments expressed in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For example, I do not believe dietary restrictions bring you closer to God. And people may believe that, and that is perfectly acceptable, though I think that Jesus would prefer you to "love thy neighbor" rather than worry over what food you eat. Again, I do not intend to offend anyone's beliefs, I simply wish to stress the law of love over any other law in the Bible.

I like to put it this way after someone presented it to me like this. People have problems reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament. They see a somewhat violent, angry God in the Old Testament and an all-loving, peaceful hippie in the form of Jesus in the New Testament. So, I say this. The people of the Bible follow the pattern of a growing and maturing child. In the beginning, in the Old Testament, they are simple. They craft stories to explain their existence, they falter and fail in the face of adversity, and they need a strong father figure to guide them. Their perception of God is in line with their young faith. As they mature in faith, they grow in other ways too. By the time of the New Testament, their perception of God is drastically different. I like to think that God needed to be harsh and strict at the beginning in order to help the people of the Bible understand who He was and what He stood for. When He decided that the Jewish people had matured in faith he finally revealed his all-loving, true self. He knew that they could understand His message now, where as they could not before. Again, I'm not saying this is how it is, it's just an idea I happen to like.

Well, you see that there is a problem. That's a start.

I'll ask you one, simple question. You disagree with some specifics of your religion. Why are you still considering yourself to be part of that church then? Don't make your religion change your faith, change your religion instead to fit your faith. All faith is equal, since faith means absence of evidence. And if you find no church fitting your faith, don't join any. Just believe in what you feel is right. But keep one thing in mind. It's just faith. Your personal thing, subjective and unprovable. Don't bother anyone else with it.

I won't change my church because I still do believe in many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. While I believe there is often a better way to go about teaching things to people than what the Church might do, I still believe in the Eucharist and other Sacraments. I understand that faith and religion are separate, but I find that the Catholic Church is a good medium for me to express my faith. Simply because I don't like my current priest at my local parish isn't enough to make me change my religion.

Regarding your statement about faith being subjective and un-provable, I agree. Nonetheless, I wish to reach certain people with what I see as a major problem facing Christianity. I want people to know that they can be Christian, and at the same time believe certain things that their church may not fully endorse. I don't intend to "bother" anyone with my faith. I do intend to help spread the message of love, which I feel is entirely appropriate.

I apologize for the double post.

[Sphere]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I fully agree with what you're saying, and apologize if how I phrased that particular sentence suggests that I think that we should ignore books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy. However, I do believe that certain religious factions point to books like that in response to critique of their rules and regulations. Furthermore, I do disagree with some of the sentiments expressed in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For example, I do not believe dietary restrictions bring you closer to God. And people may believe that, and that is perfectly acceptable, though I think that Jesus would prefer you to "love thy neighbor" rather than worry over what food you eat. Again, I do not intend to offend anyone's beliefs, I simply wish to stress the law of love over any other law in the Bible.

I like to put it this way after someone presented it to me like this. People have problems reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament. They see a somewhat violent, angry God in the Old Testament and an all-loving, peaceful hippie in the form of Jesus in the New Testament. So, I say this. The people of the Bible follow the pattern of a growing and maturing child. In the beginning, in the Old Testament, they are simple. They craft stories to explain their existence, they falter and fail in the face of adversity, and they need a strong father figure to guide them. Their perception of God is in line with their young faith. As they mature in faith, they grow in other ways too. By the time of the New Testament, their perception of God is drastically different. I like to think that God needed to be harsh and strict at the beginning in order to help the people of the Bible understand who He was and what He stood for. When He decided that the Jewish people had matured in faith he finally revealed his all-loving, true self. He knew that they could understand His message now, where as they could not before. Again, I'm not saying this is how it is, it's just an idea I happen to like.

But then we have 3 Nephi 9 1:15

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1 And it came to pass that there was a voice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:
2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!
3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.
4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.
5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.
6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;
7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.
8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.
9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.
10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.
11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.
12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.
13 O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?
14 Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me.
15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

Which makes quite clear Jesus doesn't modify the Old Testament punishments for disobeying Gods Law.

[Valden]

Jesus said "love they neighbor" but he also said "I come not to abolish the law", to an outsider these seem completely irreconcilable, it's not a particularly satisfactory solution to simply ignore the part(s) you don't like.

Jesus upgraded the law, he did not abolish it. I think the issues only arise if the bible is read without proper contextual knowledge, and through the eyes of bible fundamentalism. It is a collection of historical documents and should be treated as such; if there is some contradiction between two passages with a gap of hundreds of years (or more) between their time of writing, that doesn't mean Christianity is self-contradictory, it means different eras are producing slightly different myths. For Christians, the ministry and resurrection of Jesus are obviously the most important aspects, and so his teachings must be considered in their correct societal context. But as for Bible fundamentalism, that is a terrible form of Christianity. Jesus did not say "I leave you with this unquestionable book", he left by revealing himself to the disciples and establishing his church through them.

[Sar1n]

Well, you see that there is a problem. That's a start.

I'll ask you one, simple question. You disagree with some specifics of your religion. Why are you still considering yourself to be part of that church then? Don't make your religion change your faith, change your religion instead to fit your faith. All faith is equal, since faith means absence of evidence. And if you find no church fitting your faith, don't join any. Just believe in what you feel is right. But keep one thing in mind. It's just faith. Your personal thing, subjective and unprovable. Don't bother anyone else with it.

[basics]

Audacia,

First off, I can understand your feelings at what appears to be contradictory teaching so without further ado let's look at this from the beginning. Man has fallen, all men and women to begin with are sinners and the Law only reinforces their sin. It doesn't save, never has done and never will. It is an earthly thing for an earthly people to highlight what they are without being able to do anything about it because it only condemns.

When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross, He pinned the Law to that cross, because for all them that He died for, the Law no longer could find anything in them to condemn any more. In other words their sin was hidden by the blood of Christ from the Law because it had paid in blood for their sin. Therefore all them for whom He died are free of the curse of the Law.

How they became free is reckoned by time. In the case of the Old Testament saints that freedom was theirs at their conversions and the account for that was put to the cross by faith that the Lord Jesus Christ would redeem their accounts to the full at Golgotha. The New Testament saints also had accounts ordained in the same fashion but relevent to their actually being called as and when God draws them in, simply because most were not even born as of yet.

Nonetheless, His actions on that cross finished for ever the work that was ordained for Him to do before creation itself. It can never be repeated. The next thing we have to ask ourselves is what is it then that makes men and women free from the Law and at peace with God. As Jesus said, " A man must be born again if he is to enter heaven." But what exactly does that mean? It means that all his sin must be gone, all his old nature changed, if ever he is to see that place. That is what the blood did, once at Calvary.

However, the action of change comes only by God in the drawing in and the revelation of Jesus Christ to any particular party by the work of the Holy Ghost wherein realisation of how large their sin has been becomes evident to that party. When the truth breaks through conviction sets in, then God changes for ever their old nature to one that is new in Jesus Christ. Faith is imputed and the indwelling of the Spirit takes over the new creation.

Therefore to those that this happens are now dead to the Law. It no longer applies. It cannot ever be mixed with grace else it makes grace not grace at all and forces those who try back under its curse. Of course for all the unbelieving world the Law still applies and will do until judgement day but for them saved, changed, regenerate, a greater law was introduced, that of love. The same love that took Jesus Christ the Lord onto the cross is to be evident in all the parts that make up His body the church not only for that body but shown to outsiders, unbelievers, as well.

These saved parts that make up the body, are all now priests of the most High God, the priesthood of which Jesus Christ is Head. By adoption they are also sons and daughters of God as well as brothers and sisters of Christ. The love that they are expected to show is the same love that the Father has, that the Son has, simply because there are no rules about it. It comes from the heart, a heart that no law can find fault with. It was all pure grace come from God that He in Three Persons should have made it possible. Now that is love.

[Matthias]

I won't change my church because I still do believe in many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.

Why? Why would you believe that stuff? It's very unbelievable, and, as you say yourself, unproveable.

I think the answer for most is simply because they were raised that way and because certain beliefs they pick and choose make them feel comfortable and they don't want to alienate their family/community and all the very secular benefits of a church community or rock the social boat.

That's how religion sticks around.

Glad you have rationalized a way to ignore the parts you don't like. A lot of people have to do that in this modern age if they don't want to be intellectually honest with themselves at such a price (family, community, social stability, comfort of believing things they've been indoctrinated in since a chlld).

Hopefully your children will be able to feel they can be more honest with themselves, or even better, you won't indoctrinate them as children in unproven, unproveable beliefs.

[MaximiIian]

Interesting; quite coincidentally, I've been brushing up on early Christianity, Hellenic Judaism, Judaeo-Christian mysticism, and the history of all those things. And, yeah, there is a bit of ambiguity about the Old Testament laws. Whether or not some of them were meant for the mass populace or for the priesthood; whether or not Jesus' covenant overturned the previous one. These are thorny theological issues, ones that haven't really ever been settled to any satisfactory degree.
So, honestly, they're entirely in your hands.

PS)

I'll ask you one, simple question. You disagree with some specifics of your religion. Why are you still considering yourself to be part of that church then?

Because he doesn't have to agree with every little specific point in his religion?

[Sar1n]

In all fairness, that quote is from Book of Mormon, and most christians (except for one crazy american sect) don't consider it a part of holy texts.

[Audacia]

The love that they are expected to show is the same love that the Father has, that the Son has, simply because there are no rules about it. It comes from the heart, a heart that no law can find fault with. It was all pure grace come from God that He in Three Persons should have made it possible. Now that is love.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. If love comes from the heart, and it is love that is directed toward others, then secular laws cannot condemn the love felt by the heart.

Jesus upgraded the law, he did not abolish it. I think the issues only arise if the bible is read without proper contextual knowledge, and through the eyes of bible fundamentalism. It is a collection of historical documents and should be treated as such; if there is some contradiction between two passages with a gap of hundreds of years (or more) between their time of writing, that doesn't mean Christianity is self-contradictory, it means different eras are producing slightly different myths. For Christians, the ministry and resurrection of Jesus are obviously the most important aspects, and so his teachings must be considered in their correct societal context. But as for Bible fundamentalism, that is a terrible form of Christianity. Jesus did not say "I leave you with this unquestionable book", he left by revealing himself to the disciples and establishing his church through them.

Exactly, Christ did not write the Gospels. Furthermore, he did not write the letters and other New Testament books from which many fundamentalists draw from in order to support their claims. Jesus left his disciples with an example, an example from which we as Christians are to emulate. Above all, Jesus showed us how to love, and that love overshadows all things.

Historical documents and divine commands are in the OT. Nowhere in the NT does it say "Thou shall not kill", the OT is essential to Christianity. How can some divine commands be christian and others are not, more importantly how can one determine which.

As Valden pointed out, the New Testament does indeed reference many of the commandments. Furthermore, Jesus presented the commandment, "love thy neighbor" as superior to all the other commandments. This is because, as I have stated, all good works are derived from love. The commandments are a product of love. If you act in love, will you commit murder? Will you commit adultery?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Christ didn't denounce organized religion he denounced aspects of Judaism, there is a rather large difference. As to the issue of love every christian and, I should think every conservative catholic priest agrees with you. Do I believe Christ would love homosexuals or shun them? Of course he would love them. Does that mean that homosexuality would no longer be sinful, is prostitution no longer sinful? It sates in the catechism that ''They (homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.'' When one disagrees with homosexuality it isn't out of hatred but ultimately that the purpose of sex is for procreation and when one dissociates this purpose for the sake of lust then it is a sin. Whether that be homosexuality, contraception, :wub: or whatever it may be.

Upon the issue of looking to the bible. Christ didn't leave us a bible he left us his apostles and there successors. I say yes look to yourself and the bible and the tradition that has held true for millenia, I see no conflict. How is the church not to restrict it's followers in some fashion? to abandon Christs teaching and offer no advice or restriction upon certain elements of life or holding to that teaching regardless. Many people like to paint Christ as many things, the poor pacifist not the least popular amongst them. The plain and simple fact is that Christ is the farthest from being plain and simple. The reason we have need of so many rules is because we find so many opportunities for sin and the church attempts to offer guidance throughout the myriad of all these pitfalls. Why you think this approach of being against rules and for love is somehow opposite to the church I don't know. Of course there are rules but that's not to say the church disregards love or the many sides or conundrums of Christ. As to the law I think Christs own words should suffice "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus did not urge his followers to create a new religion. He wished for the Jewish people to accept him as Messiah. As you say, he criticized aspects of Judaism, some of which were major sticking points for the Jewish religious authorities at the time. He was certainly opposed to many of the secular laws that allowed for the religious authorities to "control" the Jewish population. Perhaps I used a bit of hyperbole, but Jesus was definitely not a flagrant supporter of the organized Jewish religion.

Regarding homosexuality, I was pointing to how many fundamentalist Christian groups firmly believe that homosexuals will be eternally damned unless they "change" their sexuality. If that does not imply a degree of hate, then what does? They may treat homosexuals nicely on a day to day basis, but if you condemn an entire group of people to hell I wouldn't say you are filled with love.

Regarding the church, where did I suggest the church abandon Christ's teachings and offer no advice? I never suggested that. I critiqued the way the church often times presents its teachings to its followers. The church, in the last century, has grown and matured in ways that many would have said to be impossible a hundred years ago. For heaven's sake, at least Catholics can interpret the Bible on their own now. I would like to see that progress continue. Church doctrine did not come from Jesus. It came from man, and because it is not divine, it can and should mold and change with the times, so long as it is always rooted in love.

Finally, regarding the perception of Jesus, I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the word simple. Jesus did live a simple life; he was a poor carpenter and never lived a life of luxury. He dressed simply, he spoke to his disciples simply through the form of parables, and he never wished to flaunt his divinity. I for one, say that represents the essence of simplicity.

Why? Why would you believe that stuff? It's very unbelievable, and, as you say yourself, unproveable.

I think the answer for most is simply because they were raised that way and because certain beliefs they pick and choose make them feel comfortable and they don't want to alienate their family/community and all the very secular benefits of a church community or rock the social boat.

That's how religion sticks around.

Glad you have rationalized a way to ignore the parts you don't like. A lot of people have to do that in this modern age if they don't want to be intellectually honest with themselves at such a price (family, community, social stability, comfort of believing things they've been indoctrinated in since a chlld).

Hopefully your children will be able to feel they can be more honest with themselves, or even better, you won't indoctrinate them as children in unproven, unproveable beliefs.

With all due respect, I am completely honest with myself intellectually, and while I don't deny the positive aspects of my religion, it is not for those reasons that I feel like I can choose what I believe and remain a Roman Catholic. Being a part of a religion does not require, as someone posted above, that I must believe in every aspect of church dogma. I believe that it is because I am intellectually honest with myself that I can refute what I believe to be unimportant or false and accept what I believe to be true. And of course none of it is provable! We're talking about faith here, faith is never provable!

In all fairness, that quote is from Book of Mormon, and most christians (except for one crazy american sect) don't consider it a part of holy texts.

I was about to say, I'm not familiar with this text.

I'd like to add to this appreciated discussion a quote I heard recently from Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church. After devoting his life to his writings on transubstantiation and other major aspects of church doctrine, Aquinas said this, "All that I have written seems like straw to me." Aquinas realized and understood all that he had written that became church dogma was trivial in the face of love. Secular rules and customs cannot match the power, divinity, and impact of God's love for us and our love of one another.

[Matthias]

With all due respect, I am completely honest with myself intellectually, and while I don't deny the positive aspects of my religion, it is not for those reasons that I feel like I can choose what I believe and remain a Roman Catholic. Being a part of a religion does not require, as someone posted above, that I must believe in every aspect of church dogma. I believe that it is because I am intellectually honest with myself that I can refute what I believe to be unimportant or false and accept what I believe to be true. And of course none of it is provable! We're talking about faith here, faith is never provable!

You didn't answer why you believe any of that stuff. Faith is illogical. Why would you believe something which is, on a grand scale, unproveable, and getting more specific (looking at the Bible), really crazy, unpersuasive, and even plain contradictory? What makes you think the Bible is the word of God, assuming God exists?

Most people's answers are intellectually dishonest but understandable, as they balance logic with social reality in their own lives. They know it makes no sense and is no more believable than any other of the infinite beliefs about unproveable things out there, and even less so when presented with some rather embarassing parts of the Bible (which they disavow), yet stick to their belief because, well, tradition and other social factors.

[Audacia]

You didn't answer why you believe any of that stuff. Faith is illogical. Why would you believe something which is, on a grand scale, unproveable, and getting more specific (looking at the Bible), really crazy, unpersuasive, and even plain contradictory? What makes you think the Bible is the word of God, assuming God exists?

Most people's answers are intellectually dishonest but understandable, as they balance logic with social reality in their own lives. They know it makes no sense and is no more believable than any other of the infinite beliefs about unproveable things out there, and even less so when presented with some rather embarassing parts of the Bible (which they disavow), yet stick to their belief because, well, tradition and other social factors.

Why? Because I have had experiences in my own life that point to the existence of God and the truth in what is said by Jesus in the Gospels. I could go on for pages about why I believe in the existence of God and the words in the Bible, but that is not what this thread is about. It's about the seemingly contradictory actions of Christian religious groups.

Which brings me to your next point, that faith is illogical, unpersuasive, contradictory, etc. And yes, you're right. I believe in something that is so un-provable, unbelievable, and "crazy" because I firmly believe in a higher spiritual order. I can't explain it, I can't rightly justify it, but again, that's what faith is. Sometimes, rather than trying to find a rational solution to all of the mysteries in life, it reflects a high degree of wisdom (rather than laziness) to say, you know what, I really don't know everything, but this is what I believe even though I can't possibly have all the answers.

[Mikesmith08]

I agree that Judaism was supposed to become Christianity if you like, to accept Christ and ultimately change a great deal but I don't believe this stretches to Christs utter condemnation of dogma or organized religion even if he did criticize aspects of Judaism. I am quite sure Christ would have plenty to criticize in our own church but that doesn't necessitate a criticism of organized religion itself.

Regarding homosexuality I agree with you. I thought you were talking about the catholic position itself but as to other denominations, on both extremes of the argument, It can safely be said that the church differs greatly and urges love and compassion first and foremost.

I think it folly to see so drastic a change in the last hundred years in the church. Of course there has been change there is always change but both ultra pro and con elements of the Vatican II argument are off the mark in my opinion. On the interpretation of the bible I can see the sense of arguments made. Christ didn't leave us a bible he left us apostles and the tradition they passed down to ourselves in the modern day. Obviously the bible has a huge part to play in this but you yourslef can see the huge disparities that people can draw from the bible. Look at these peope who unequivocally condemn homosexuals to hell. It is vital that a valid interpretation compatible with the tradition of Christs church is placed foremost in catholic biblical studies and I can understand the church worrying about this and attempting to keep it so. That's not to say that I disagree that Catholics should be allowed to interpret the bible just that I understand the importance the church has long placed on it.

I believe church doctrine is influenced by the Holy spirit and although it is certainly not divine I do not believe it should simply mold and change with the times. The church is against the times and I thank God for it. The church should not pander to popularity and forsake the teaching and tradition of milennia for the sake of appearing progressive.

“And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.” - I have always liked that quote and you'll have to forgive me for the length of this post but although I can accept the view of the 'simple Christ' there is at the same time a Christ that is more than that. Totally inadequate words that they are to describe such things but the best that I could find.......there was something more, let it be left at that.

[Matthias]

The church is against the times and I thank God for it. The church should not pander to popularity and forsake the teaching and tradition of milennia for the sake of appearing progressive.

The church recruits members almost entirely through childhood indoctrination. It is strongest in places where the people are most ignorant and have the least access to information. The church is a regressive, close-minded, irrational institution. If there was a God, I wouldn't be thanking them for giving us such a destructive and horrible institution that has impeded human progress at every turn for millenia. Course, I do thank God, if she does exist, for the church being nothing more than a husk now, much less powerful and destructive than it used to be, and heading for the same place Odin and Zeus came from in the long view of history.

[alex man142]

The church recruits members almost entirely through childhood indoctrination. It is strongest in places where the people are most ignorant and have the least access to information. The church is a regressive, close-minded, irrational institution. If there was a God, I wouldn't be thanking them for giving us such a destructive and horrible institution that has impeded human progress at every turn for millenia. Course, I do thank God, if she does exist, for the church being nothing more than a husk now, much less powerful and destructive than it used to be, and heading for the same place Odin and Zeus came from in the long view of history.

Um, ok?

[FireFreak111]

The church recruits members almost entirely through childhood indoctrination. It is strongest in places where the people are most ignorant and have the least access to information. The church is a regressive, close-minded, irrational institution. If there was a God, I wouldn't be thanking them for giving us such a destructive and horrible institution that has impeded human progress at every turn for millenia. Course, I do thank God, if she does exist, for the church being nothing more than a husk now, much less powerful and destructive than it used to be, and heading for the same place Odin and Zeus came from in the long view of history.

You have a very close-minded view and make many false statements. Assuming something as fact by using words such as 'all' or 'entirely' is wrong, like the people who say all Microsoft comments on a tech website are from people paid by Microsoft .

Many, many people become a Christian when they are not a child. Many people from the age of 18-30 also become a Christian willingly in mass numbers.

The Church and Christianity are not the same. If you refer to the church as the Catholic Church, that is a true statement. The Pope and their rules not from the Bible, their structure, scandals and more are not what Christianity was intended to be. I swear, people often forget that Grace was the message of the New Testament. The Catholic Church is the product of mixing Power and Faith.

Athiests need to stop looking at the Old Testament, looking at the Catholic Church and deducing that all there is to Christianity are these two things. Tolerance and acceptance would cure so much hate and compulsive destruction of people's beliefs committed by Athiests. Your as bad as those who hate on Gays when you do this.

[FireFreak111]

I will admit, terrible analogy. And I was being very extreme. I see so many Atheists make rude statements such as dismissing all who follow a faith as 'indoctrinated sheep' or much worse. Just because someone chooses to follow a religion it doesn't make them less of a person, retarted or brainwashed. People do choose to follow religion, and many people seem to forget that when making dismissive statements.

Debating is good, as long as people don't dismiss their view as 'childhood indoctrination' (and I am not denying it happens), assuming something many would consider rude. And again, I believe that the Catholic hold over 1000 years was wrong and an abuse of power, but it did keep civilization standing for some time

[Mikesmith08]

The church recruits members almost entirely through childhood indoctrination. It is strongest in places where the people are most ignorant and have the least access to information. The church is a regressive, close-minded, irrational institution. If there was a God, I wouldn't be thanking them for giving us such a destructive and horrible institution that has impeded human progress at every turn for millenia. Course, I do thank God, if she does exist, for the church being nothing more than a husk now, much less powerful and destructive than it used to be, and heading for the same place Odin and Zeus came from in the long view of history.

As ignorant and offensive as this is I will answer it. You say the church indoctrinates the young but then at the same time claim the church is now a husk. After 2000 years and being the largest non-governmental education provider in the world you'd think they'd be better at this 'indoctrination' and getting people into the churches. As to this errant nonsense of the church impeding human progress nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to popular belief it was the church that dragged us from the dark ages, she practically invented formal education and founded the vast majority of higher educational institutions in Europe and a great many beyond. In our own times it was a roman catholic priest, father Georges Lemaitre that first proposed what became the big bang theory at the catholic university of Louvain. The church is the single largest organization to have ever existed and still remains so and I should think even in the face of the bigoted ignorance so prevalent today that it will be around for a great deal longer, Chesterton said ''Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each one of them Christianity has died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a god who knew the way out of the grave. But the first extraordinary fact which marks this history is this: that Europe has been turned upside down over and over again; and that at the end of each of these revolutions the same religion has again been found on top. The Faith is always converting the age, not as an old religion but as a new religion.''

[Sphere]

In all fairness, that quote is from Book of Mormon, and most christians (except for one crazy american sect) don't consider it a part of holy texts.

Why not?

Are you saying people who follow the teachings of Christ is in all his revelations "crazy"? There are millions of people who have read the Book of Mormon and feel it is the revelation of the Lord and they cannot all be wrong. Perhaps if you read the Book of Mormon you would understand why the millions who have been touched by it feel the way they do and why it is the fastest growing Christian sect in the world.