Jesus would have hated Christianity as organized religion

I would disagree. The Bible as we know it was a theologically motivated anthology collected for the sole purpose a protecting the faithful from the many heresies which were being spread and were threatening the Undivided Church.

Haha, right. The poor faithful had to be protected because he couldn`t make up his own mind. Sounds familiar? Seems pretty much like government intervention.

Lots of gospels and interesting texts were left out of the bible as we know it today. Several of those that were included had been severely edited and modified.
 
Last edited:
The Bible as we know it was a theologically motivated anthology collected for the sole purpose a protecting the faithful from the many heresies which were being spread and were threatening the Undivided Church.

Actually, there was no unified church prior to Constantine calling the first council of Nicaea. Whether the Holy Spirit manipulated his political ambitions for the purpose of creating a universal church is a matter of Faith.
 
How many muslims have you met? In my experience with muslims in the West (yes, in real life-not just on the webbernetz), they read a wide variety of things, just as you and I do.

I`ve met few dozens(in the West and in muslim countries) that only read one book, the Koran. What`s interesting is that some of them were college graduates.
 
Last edited:
Actually, there was no unified church prior to Constantine calling the first council of Nicaea. Whether the Holy Spirit manipulated his political ambitions for the purpose of creating a universal church is a matter of Faith.

Must have been same holy spirit who manipulated him into killing his wife and child.
 
Haha, right. The poor faithful had to be protected because he couldn`t make up his own mind. Sounds familiar? Seems pretty much like government intervention.

Lots of gospels and interesting texts were left out of the bible as we know it today. Several of those who have been included have been severely edited and modified.

I don't understand your first sentence. Who didn't make up his mind?

And the 'gospels' and other books that were left out were done so because even though you may find them interesting, they did not pass the scrutiny of the catholic (read: universal) Church as represented by the collected Bishops and hierarchy who came together in council to deliberate and pray over. Some, like the 'Gospel of Thomas' weren't even considered because by that time it was well known to be a dubious writing. Others, like the Shepard of Hermas, they deliberated for a while because while some of it raised questions, most of it was completely orthodox and accepted as divinely inspired by the saints before them. Not being in the canon does not mean certain works are not inspired or beneficial writings. Rather, the ones that were chosen were done considered to be universally accepted as authoritative and adhering to the Apostolic witness of the faith.

In conclusion, texts which were included and texts which were not included in the canon were done so in order to present a universally accepted canon of writings (kanon from the Greek word meaning measuring stick) in order to educate and protect the faithful they were chosen from and were sworn to protect as servants of Christ their God.
 
Last edited:
I guess you`re a technophobe that has a problem with modern mediums of information sharing. I know you`ve mentioned dozens of times something about knowledge found on internet and how that is less worth than a hard copy book. [...]

I'm not a technophobe as you put it (I'm a computer programmer!) I in fact read most of my books via online copies - however a youtube rant, and basing everything on anecdotal evidence rather than hard studying, and using passages and historical accounts I find to be inappropriate in this context. I believe so because being Muslim I run into the same things day in and day out, arguments that Islam promotes misogyny or or that Muslims are allowed to lie, I mean just stupid things, and if I ask why people think that I usually get a link to youtube - they themselves haven't read the Qur'an, they themselves haven't studied the history of Islam but they want to be experts in the field. I'm not commenting on whether or not you know about Christianity but for a claim like this one must present a hypothesis like Jesus wouldn't approve of 'x' and use historical and biblical accounts to back that up. This promotes intellectual discourse.

I read a variety of things including Paul's End The Fed, and like many I quickly picked up Bastiat's The Law as per Ron Paul's recommendation. Admittedly the majority of books I read are either linguistic (for Classical Arabic) or books of Islamic scholars, but I also like to read (or gloss over at least) the New Testament and Old Testament from time to time.

I hope you understand my point anyway. I love debates as much as the next guy I think both sides end up learning if done properly and respectfully.
 
Actually, there was no unified church prior to Constantine calling the first council of Nicaea. Whether the Holy Spirit manipulated his political ambitions for the purpose of creating a universal church is a matter of Faith.

Incorrect. There was indeed a unified Church directly tracing back via Apostolic succession in communion with one another which was being threatened by the Arius heresy.
 
In fact, the First Council included over 300 bishops who came together representing all of Christendom at that time, all of them in communion with one another and members of the universal Church. Every region had one bishop who oversaw all the communities of believers in his see, just as it was in the days of the Apostles and as it was in the days of Constantine.
 
Last edited:
How does one graduate college having read only one book?

By reading only the required courses. In countries like Tunisia or Egypt, most college graduates don`t read anything but the specific courses required to pass the exam.

A book collection inside an average house in muslim arab country is a very rare thing. It came as a shock to me when I first found out about it at the time. I was not expecting it to be honest.
 
If you continue to make such ignorant and offensive statements, I will stop debating with you.
I was being sarcastic. I didn`t actually believe that.

Someone who would kill his wife and child doesn`t really care for the message of Jesus. I was trying to imply that emperor and saint Constantine used Christianity as political tool as it was very convenient at the time to do so.

From there onwards it continued to be used as such by various churches.
 
In a sense.

Jesus wanted a church resembling a family. It is more governmental now.

Even if that were true it doesn't mean anything significant since 1st century families were patriarchal and much more ordered with dominant and subordinate members unlike modern families.

Edit: That is to say your placing a false dichotomy between family and government. The governmental aspect of some churches is not a problem in fact it's required. Rather, the problem is many churches are merely governments and as TER said do not have the attributes of the body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
By reading only the required courses. In countries like Tunisia or Egypt, most college graduates don`t read anything but the specific courses required to pass the exam.

A book collection inside an average house in muslim arab country is a very rare thing. It came as a shock to me when I first found out about it at the time. I was not expecting it to be honest.

Sounds just like most American college students to me...

Oh and just like the average American family too. How many households do you think have nothing more than a couple Stephen king novels? Quite a few.
 
"I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”-The Prophet Joseph Smith recounting his First Vision, when he saw and spoke to both the Father and the Son.


The problem with modern Christianity is that it has long abandoned the spirit of revelation. And without it, Christianity has become like the Pharisees and Sadducees of teh New Testament. Just as the Pharisees had a form of godliness, they based their lives on the Law of Moses, they had gone apostate and worshiped the words on a scroll more than they had worshiped God Himself. This lead them into all kinds of error, so much so that even though they had the words memorized backwards and forwards, they could not recognize the Messiah when He stood before them. They kept the form of the law, but denied the power of it and lost the Spirit of God. Much of Christianity is the same.

This is NOT to say that Christians are evil. Many, if not most, are amazing people who do their best to follow God. But what they have to guide them is so limited and misunderstood. Their teachers are without inspiration or revelation. So of course they screw up the doctrine and teachings of Christ. A man voting on which beliefs to uphold (as the early "Church" councils were essentially doing) cannot be right even most of the time. The real miracle is that they got it correct ever. But in the end many false doctrines and feelings entered the faith leading to false conclusions.

The thing to remember is that all people are flawed and are only trying to do the best they could with what they had/have. Don't hate someone because you don't have the moral authority or perfection to do so. You're just as screwed up as they are in your own way.
 
Incorrect. There was indeed a unified Church directly tracing back via Apostolic succession in communion with one another which was being threatened by the Arius heresy.

Interesting. A "unified" church has less to do with doctrine than with organization. The backbone of the church, the Nicene Creed, was formulated at the council. The Arian heresy was not destroyed by the council. Why do you believe the church was unified when it was both organizationally and doctrinally diverse prior to Constantine? Is this important theologically?
 
Back
Top