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?
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's correct! We can't know for sure anything. We can only assume. We've been indoctrinated almost 24/7 for all our lives. This we know of. But what if we have been indoctrinated not only on cognitive level, but on a deeper level as well? Who's to say what's real and what's not at this point?
Where do they get their beliefs from? Believers in what exactly?
That's a good question actually. So, your assumption is that only official Church has the monopoly on truth. Ok, which one? Catholic? What about Orthodox? Which one of those is correct?
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?
That's correct! We can't know for sure anything. We can only assume. We've been indoctrinated almost 24/7 for all our lives. This we know of. But what if we have been indoctrinated not only on cognitive level, but on a deeper level as well? Who's to say what's real and what's not at this point?
That's a good question actually. So, your assumption is that only official Church has the monopoly on truth. Ok, which one? Catholic? What about Orthodox? Which one of those is correct?