Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
This is your interpretation because you're not a Christian. But if the Christian worldview is correct this would not be the case. I think I laid out how Christianity views government and authority well enough. You may not agree with this worldview but I'm not granting you yours (which is influenced by enlightenment and marxist ideas) as the self-evident or default interpretation either.
In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
This argument sounds to me like gay "scholars" explaining away why heterosexual sex is the norm in society by arguing that it's just a social construct that happened to work historically, instead of facing the truth that it worked because of our biology and design and it has nothing to do with manmade constructs.
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
Because Christianity offers a coherent, logically consistent, historically attested and holistic worldview that can ground logic, morality and metaphysics as a whole. No other worldview can give you that. I've searched a lot in my time and was a staunch atheist for many years, reading lots of philosophy, especially by authors who critiqued Christianity (it's funny they always go against the Truth and have no axe to grind with other religions).
I always hear complaining about the Bible's supposed "atrocities" from people who can't even give an account for what's objectively good or bad from their worldview. How do you have knowledge of what's moral so that you can judge things, like God killing off everyone safe for one family because everyone was wicked, to be immoral? It always boils down to personal preferences but that's not objective at all. It's like telling me you like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. Cool, so what?
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
Not quite. At no point did I imply that belief in God or Christ is false. I do have my issues with the institute of it though. See, that's what the elites do. They take something good and then they twist and turn and manipulate it until it serves their interest. By adhering to the good in people and by manipulating it they make people submit to them, submit to their nonexistent authority, which, again, is the root cause of all this shitshow, in my opinion.
In any case I do prefer traditional values over modern ones myself and this has been a very interesting discussion at the very least.
How do you have knowledge of what true Christianity is or who the Christian God is then? It's most likely the Bible, right? But the Bible was composed and passed on by the traditional Christian institution (the Church) that you have distrust in.
According to scripture, Christ Himself affirms the authority of that institution (the Church being His body) and sends the Holy Spirit to His apostles, so that they can evangelize all around the world and grow His Church which will exist until the end of times.
How do you have knowledge of what true Christianity is or who the Christian God is then? It's most likely the Bible, right?
But even Bible is not something that simply appeared in its current form. It was compiled relatively recently from various texts by various authors. Different confessions have different canons. Which one is the correct one? Catholic, Protestant, maybe Ethiopian one? And what about apocrypha? Why some texts were included and some weren't? Who exactly do we trust on this?
You see, everything a human hand touches is marred by lies, omissions, half-truths and whatnot. We cannot trust anything coming from human beings. There is no sure way to determine what is true and what is not. That's just how it is in this sorry world.
Christ Himself affirms the authority of that institution (the Church being His body) and sends the Holy Spirit to His apostles...
As other commenter has already stated, I think this is probably meant as a whole body of all believers. Not some particular institution with some particular people a the helm, but the whole collective of Christian believers.
But even Bible is not something that simply appeared in its current form. It was compiled relatively recently from various texts by various authors. Different confessions have different canons. Which one is the correct one? Catholic, Protestant, maybe Ethiopian one? And what about apocrypha? Why some texts were included and some weren't? Who exactly do we trust on this?
Exactly, so how do you know who Jesus was and what was His teaching. You're just proving my point. You're denying any authority (be it a historical Church or the Bible itself) and yet hold some view about Christ that is based on the information that got to us via that tradition.
You see, everything a human hand touches is marred by lies, omissions, half-truths and whatnot. We cannot trust anything coming from human beings. There is no sure way to determine what is true and what is not. That's just how it is in this sorry world.
Then you can't have any knowledge apart from empirical knowledge of things you witnessed yourself (and even then you have to trust your senses and evaluation).
As other commenter has already stated, I think this is probably meant as a whole body of all believers. Not some particular institution with some particular people a the helm, but the whole collective of Christian believers.
That just pushes the problem of authority down further down the road. Even if I grant you that the Church is "the body of all believers" and not a historical institution established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, it begs the same question I asked you: Where do they get their beliefs from? Believers in what exactly?
This is your interpretation because you're not a Christian. But if the Christian worldview is correct this would not be the case. I think I laid out how Christianity views government and authority well enough. You may not agree with this worldview but I'm not granting you yours (which is influenced by enlightenment and marxist ideas) as the self-evident or default interpretation either.
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
This argument sounds to me like gay "scholars" explaining away why heterosexual sex is the norm in society by arguing that it's just a social construct that happened to work historically, instead of facing the truth that it worked because of our biology and design and it has nothing to do with manmade constructs.
Because Christianity offers a coherent, logically consistent, historically attested and holistic worldview that can ground logic, morality and metaphysics as a whole. No other worldview can give you that. I've searched a lot in my time and was a staunch atheist for many years, reading lots of philosophy, especially by authors who critiqued Christianity (it's funny they always go against the Truth and have no axe to grind with other religions).
I always hear complaining about the Bible's supposed "atrocities" from people who can't even give an account for what's objectively good or bad from their worldview. How do you have knowledge of what's moral so that you can judge things, like God killing off everyone safe for one family because everyone was wicked, to be immoral? It always boils down to personal preferences but that's not objective at all. It's like telling me you like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. Cool, so what?
Not quite. At no point did I imply that belief in God or Christ is false. I do have my issues with the institute of it though. See, that's what the elites do. They take something good and then they twist and turn and manipulate it until it serves their interest. By adhering to the good in people and by manipulating it they make people submit to them, submit to their nonexistent authority, which, again, is the root cause of all this shitshow, in my opinion.
In any case I do prefer traditional values over modern ones myself and this has been a very interesting discussion at the very least.
the Church is the Body of Believers. ALL Saved Christians are part of God's Church.
if you believe it is a specific place, like the RCC or Orthodox, you are mistaken.
Yes, I agree. This is most probably correct interpretation.
How do you have knowledge of what true Christianity is or who the Christian God is then? It's most likely the Bible, right? But the Bible was composed and passed on by the traditional Christian institution (the Church) that you have distrust in.
According to scripture, Christ Himself affirms the authority of that institution (the Church being His body) and sends the Holy Spirit to His apostles, so that they can evangelize all around the world and grow His Church which will exist until the end of times.
But even Bible is not something that simply appeared in its current form. It was compiled relatively recently from various texts by various authors. Different confessions have different canons. Which one is the correct one? Catholic, Protestant, maybe Ethiopian one? And what about apocrypha? Why some texts were included and some weren't? Who exactly do we trust on this?
You see, everything a human hand touches is marred by lies, omissions, half-truths and whatnot. We cannot trust anything coming from human beings. There is no sure way to determine what is true and what is not. That's just how it is in this sorry world.
As other commenter has already stated, I think this is probably meant as a whole body of all believers. Not some particular institution with some particular people a the helm, but the whole collective of Christian believers.
Exactly, so how do you know who Jesus was and what was His teaching. You're just proving my point. You're denying any authority (be it a historical Church or the Bible itself) and yet hold some view about Christ that is based on the information that got to us via that tradition.
Then you can't have any knowledge apart from empirical knowledge of things you witnessed yourself (and even then you have to trust your senses and evaluation).
That just pushes the problem of authority down further down the road. Even if I grant you that the Church is "the body of all believers" and not a historical institution established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, it begs the same question I asked you: Where do they get their beliefs from? Believers in what exactly?