Monday, October 31, 2005

Christianity and the primordial ooze

Brew brought up an interesting point which I think can merit a bit of delving.
Collectively the members of this blog adhere to a fairly strict set of “guidelines” established without an ecclesiastical hierarchy. We all agree that through the diligent searching of Biblical texts the “church” as we recognize it is set up in a good way.

During the Crusades, Exploration (insert conquering) of new worlds, and various other tumultuous times throughout the “Church” (note: C, big C) history. During these eras Christianity was spread much in the same way as Islam and that’s by conquering the guys who didn’t believe the same thing.

Though it’s been proven time and time again that the four gospels are as accurate as they could be having in some cases only being written a decade after the crucifixion if not sooner that bad stuff has happened in the besmirched name of God.

In bypassing the historical “Church” do we have the right to claim a new “church” based on the evolution of the practitioners of this sect of the modern church?
My point is this. I don’t consider the faith of those who enacted the crusades, witch hunts and other murderous activities a part of my “church” because of their perception of of Biblical texts. Those folks followed a man not the words, actions and deeds of the Son of Man.


bigsip said...

Was there a question?

Sorry, man. I'm confused.

If you're asking if the folks who enacted many heinous acts in the name of God were directly responsible for the church of Christ, I'd say absolutely not. That was all Catholic.

Is that what you're asking or did I miss something?

mullinz8 said...

It’s more of a relational question.
I don’t consider the catholic theology anything close to what I believe. Largely those acts were considered Christian works. Is there some sort of theological gap out there that collapses these different factions into a larger whole?

It’s not PC, not that I really care but I consider those catholic atrocities not Christian.

bigsip said...

I don't consider the Catholic church to be "christian". It's sosmething entirely in and of itself.

Mormonism isn't "christian" either.

These are religions set up to follow rules that men have made and include idolatry, racism, and a plethora of other acts and rules and hierarchies that are found nowhere in the Bible.

"Christianity" is a word that's been misused by too many people. I've heard some folks say they'd rather be called "believers" or "disciples of Christ" or simply "disciples" just to escape the negative connotation that has been brought on the name Christian by so many people.

But, the name Christsian is Biblical. "They were first called Christians at Antioch".

Of course, followers of Christ have been called many things in the Bible. In fact, Christian was a sort of derogatory term in some circles. Sort of like how Communist or Socialist is used today.

Anyway, it's sort of one of those things you just have to overlook and just try to live right and be an example.