the divisions of Christianity

[sojourner]

What does that mean? And more importantly, however you answer that question, what if your answer is a product of your "limited human understanding" and you are actually excluding people in violation of"God's" call to unity in the Body of Christ?

What does it mean to follow Christ? It means to do as he did and to subject yourself to him as best you can, according to your understanding of how that's done. I'm not excluding anyone -- even those who would separate themselves, or attempt to separate me. My stance is that anyone who claims Christ is a Christian. I further claim that some follow Christ without knowing it or without voicing it as such. When the disciples caught a man who was "not one of them" casting out demons, they rebuked him. But Jesus told them that whoever was not against them was for them.

 

[sojourner]

Take a look at this recent exchange for example: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=668484&postcount=139

And there's probably at least 30 a day just like it just on this forum. Is "writer" on the same path with someone he considers a willing idolator?

I think so. he may be taking a different route to get there, or is traveling in a different lane, or on a different bus, but I think his eyes are fixed on Christ and that's all that matters to me. I would welcome him with open arms at the Lord's Table in my congregation, despite the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye.

 

[doppelganger]

I think so. he may be taking a different route to get there, or is traveling in a different lane, or on a different bus, but I think his eyes are fixed on Christ and that's all that matters to me. I would welcome him with open arms at the Lord's Table in my congregation, despite the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye.

Good answer.

 

[doppelganger]

What does it mean to follow Christ? It means to do as he did and to subject yourself to him as best you can, according to your understanding of how that's done.

I don't mean to pester you, but what does that mean? What must one do to "do as he did" and what does the phrase "subject yourself to him" mean?

Do I have to turnover moneychanger's tables at the Temple? Or do I just need to be ceaselessly and unendingly forgiving even to willingly let people torture and murder me and still not judge them for it?

How does one "follow Christ" as to be part of the Body? And isn't it possible that any answer to that question that doesn't include everybody is a product of our limited understanding?

 

[sojourner]

I don't mean to pester you, but what does that mean? What must one do to be "do as he did" and what does the phrase "subject yourself to him" mean?

Do I have to turnover moneychanger's tables at the Temple? Or do I just need to be ceaselessly and unendingly forgiving even to willingly let people torture and murder me and still not judge them for it?

How does one "follow Christ" as to be part of the Body? And isn't it possible that any answer to that question that doesn't include everybody is a product of our limited understanding?

"Good Teacher, What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What does the Law say?"
"Love God and love my neighbor."
"You have answered correctly do these and you shall live."
:scratches head, thinking: ..."Who is my neighbor?"
We all know the parable of the Samaritan. It's not about particularly what you do, as it is about the impetus for doing it, and where one's heart is. Doing What Jesus did means living into God. Following Christ means journeying toward God.

Your last question: Quite possibly.

 

[doppelganger]

"Good Teacher, What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What does the Law say?"
"Love God and love my neighbor."
"You have answered correctly do these and you shall live."
:scratches head, thinking: ..."Who is my neighbor?"
We all know the parable of the Samaritan. It's not about particularly what you do, as it is about the impetus for doing it, and where one's heart is. Doing What Jesus did means living into God. Following Christ means journeying toward God.

Your last question: Quite possibly.

God answers again. I'm out of frubals though. :sorry1:

 

[sojourner]

God answers again. I'm out of frubals though. :sorry1:

And the little boy only had five small loaves and two fishes. Yet, it was enough, with leftovers! I appreciate the sentiment!

 

[McBell]

Division from a human perspective, limited by human understanding. But the head of the Church is Christ, who is fully divine. We largely stumble around after Jesus in the dark. We only see in part, as Paul says. That's why we divide ourselves. But we still follow. And who we follow, whose Body we are, is not divided.

Here you are talking yourself in circles.
The explanation is so complicated and spiritual that you have to be a Christian in order to comprehend it, right?

 

[sojourner]

Here you are talking yourself in circles.
The explanation is so complicated and spiritual that you have to be a Christian in order to comprehend it, right?

Maybe. It is quite experiential. Maybe like trying to explain "green" to a blind person.

Let me try again. We humans do divide ouselves. There's no doubt about that. we can see it and experience it. But what we divide ourselves into or away from is not "the Church" -- it is only the human manifestation of "the Church." "The Church" is the body of people who identify themselves with Jesus and as his followers. We are, primarily the Body of Christ on earth. It's a spiritual concept. The way in which we manifest that Body can be (and is) flawed, misunderstood, divided. But the "glue" -- the Spirit that holds us together as the Body of Christ -- is not an organization or institution, it's the Holy Spirit. We do not primarily identify ourselves as :denomination:. We primarily identify ourselves as "Christian." We identify with him and are part of him. As such, no matter how we may divide ourselves in our limited understanding of ourselves and each other, we are united in whose we are, and in who we represent, and in who we follow, and in who we profess, and in who we are traveling toward.

What we are dividing is not really "The Church," but only the way in which we organize ourselves.

 

[McBell]

I understand.
Christianity does not include "The Church."

 

[Pah]

...
What we are dividing is not really "The Church," but only the way in which we organize ourselves.

Why couldn't one say that the very act of re-organization from the homogeneous organization of the New Testamant is a fragmentation of the Church. There certianly was a sturcture highly evident in Paul's time.

That could lead to the question "Did the Church die when Apostles and disciples died"? And another - "Is the Church a modern day, or whatever, invention"?

 

[!Fluffy!]

Christianity cannot be truly divided because Christianity is Christ...who is not divided. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is not the institution, but the people; and the people are all "in Christ" and "of Christ" and, therefore, not divided...just different.
You're misunderstanding who and what we are. We do not truly identify ourselves as belonging to a religion, or an institution, or an organization, but to Christ.

I don't know how many more ways it can be said.

"He who has ears, let him hear"..

 

[McBell]

Maybe. It is quite experiential. Maybe like trying to explain "green" to a blind person.

Let me try again. We humans do divide ouselves. There's no doubt about that. we can see it and experience it. But what we divide ourselves into or away from is not "the Church" -- it is only the human manifestation of "the Church." "The Church" is the body of people who identify themselves with Jesus and as his followers. We are, primarily the Body of Christ on earth. It's a spiritual concept. The way in which we manifest that Body can be (and is) flawed, misunderstood, divided. But the "glue" -- the Spirit that holds us together as the Body of Christ -- is not an organization or institution, it's the Holy Spirit. We do not primarily identify ourselves as :denomination:. We primarily identify ourselves as "Christian." We identify with him and are part of him. As such, no matter how we may divide ourselves in our limited understanding of ourselves and each other, we are united in whose we are, and in who we represent, and in who we follow, and in who we profess, and in who we are traveling toward.

What we are dividing is not really "The Church," but only the way in which we organize ourselves.

I understand now.
Since your deity is split into three parts, but still one...

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

What's painfully obvious is that such misinterpretation is neither unexpected nor unpopular, though exhibiting a certain lack of depth in view of the many posts preceding it, especially those specifically addressing the post responded to.

Okay... not sure why you are addressing a statement for Katzpur but its cool. I appreciate it. Not sure I follow you all the way, but I kinda get it.

I will point out we are not at present blowing each other up or setting one another on fire over our petty differences of polity, (note to you other-denominational Christians out there, thank you very much for not blowing me up).

Okay not sure how blowing yourself up is relevant to my statement or setting someone on fire. I am glad that is not happening. I pray its not happening continues.

:angel2:

P.S. see the post directly preceding yours and post #52.

I did, thanks.

 

[sojourner]

Why couldn't one say that the very act of re-organization from the homogeneous organization of the New Testamant is a fragmentation of the Church. There certianly was a sturcture highly evident in Paul's time.

That could lead to the question "Did the Church die when Apostles and disciples died"? And another - "Is the Church a modern day, or whatever, invention"?

Don't kid yourself. There was no "homogeneous organization of the New Testament [church]." Read I Cor. 1:10-18, if you want good evidence of New Testament division.
Also, the battle between Paul and the Jewish Apostles over the issue of circumcision.

There is no re-organization, because there has never been organization. There has been structure -- but that structure is seen as developing -- not crashing.

 

[logician]

Christianaity started as a competition between competing cults, bascially the gnostists, and the literalists, (plus other subdivisions), the gnostists believing in a spiritual Christ, while the literalists believed in a physcial historica Christ. The literalists won the day, mainly and destroyed most of the gnostist manuscripts as heretical documents. Protestantism was a modern splinter off of Catholism which didn't not believe in the authority of the pope.