How did Christianity lose its spirituality?
Today we have mega churches complete with rock bands. Street preachers who use Christianity as a means to push their own personal and political agenda. People believe that churches are the temples of God, instead of the human body as they used to believe. People today believe the Bible, a book written over thousands of years by different people using different languages is the "word of God" instead of believing that Jesus is the word of God as many Catholics still do today.
Early Christianity was replete with various philosophical and Gnostic ideas possibly influenced by various other religions including Buddhism, Hinduism. It was well understood by Early Christians that there were numerous "mysteries" which Jesus was the key to unlocking, but today Jesus is treated more as a santa claus figure but the human condition is seen as disgusting, immoral and even evil.
That's not what Jesus looked like.
This is what Jesus looked like.
I usually don't like simplistic, reductionist explanations for social phenomena, but in this insurance it's true - it all boils down to the Protestant Reformation.
While Catholicism was arguably already more legalistic and life-affirming than its eastern counterparts, it still had a strong mystical tradition and the official dogma was that God was something to be yearned for, not some happy force in the sky that granted all your wishes.
When the Reformation came about however, the floodgates were opened to far more materialist interpretations of the Bible and suddenly spirituality became about finding confirmation for your actions instead of the intense inner struggle it's meant to be, and as a result after several centuries of theological refinement you get a situation where Jesus is supposed to make you "feel good" rather than be used as the guide for subtle spiritual growth that he is. This in turn influenced the rise of secularism and the decline of church authority on moral matters, leaving us in the situation we have today.
It's a shame, really, genuine Christian spirituality looks nothing like the simplistic legal doctrine that is so readily destroyed by fedora tippers, and had it remained it's mystical elements then a lot more fence-sitters today would be inclined to try it out, rather than reject it on conditions that don't even fully reflect the faith.
If anyone is interested in further research for this phenomenon and answers as to how to practice their own spiritual life, I suggest looking into Pastor Anderson, Barnabas Powell, and reading books on Christian Hermiticism.
There are many believers,( including me) that esteem morality and substitute it for spirituality.
All their righteousness (the things they do right) are but filthy rags before God.
Spirituality for any believer is the ongoing relationship that we have with the Father through Jesus Christ, His Son. Our complete faith in God's word it what keeps us rightly related to God in our experience, and we live that out by walking and being lead of the Holy Spirit.
>People today believe the Bible, a book written over thousands of years by different people using different languages is the "word of God"
Yep. This is pretty much American Protestantism in a nutshell.
On topic, this book is an incredible read for anyone who is interested in understanding how the bible has been altered, added, changed, and subtracted over the centuries. A must read, imo.
it is the fate of all mystical teachings, to blossom then wither into a husk. like blood from a living body, it only retains its vitality for so long until it congeals.
organized religion is the corpse of personal spirituality.
dude, gnosticism was basically occultism and spitting on filthy casuals for not knowing the secret hand shake that lets you bypass the planetary archons as you try to escape the universe and rejoin an illogical concept of God. it's not really something to spout off as being praiseworthy.
it's basically the 2nd century version of /fringe/ -- elitists who think they're better than you because they have tulpas.
all of your other complaints are developments that come from the peasant rabble of the radical reformation, or else innovations coming from American restorationism.
apostolic Christianity and magisterial Protestantism is still fairly decent.
even with spirituality through meditation and contemplation, very few people are religious. see the eastern monks and western buddhist spending their time in hedonism [aversion towards pains, avidity towards pleasures, identification through desires and achievement of desires], while claiming not to be so, with the purpose to enhance their hedonism through the applause of other people in not calling them hedonistic.
most people are on earth to be hedonistic and to remain so, they just do not wish to change, and even they wish to change, they have no idea how, besides having faith in another doctrine different from hedonism, and even they know how, they still are lazy to leave hedonism [since hedonism today has the least explicit, direct pains experimented, but pleasures are very fleeting...].
and since rationalism is trendy and has been since -500, you have the brand ''faith'' when you switch doctrines, especially from the rationalist [who fails to see that any rationalism is pure faith too, and even worse, rationalism serves mundane hedonism], at least until you change and gain certainty, certainty which does not come form a rationalism. so it pisses off any rationalist-hedonists and the hedonists.
but in the end, it is not so problematic that people remain hedonistic, with poor attempt to rationalize it. accept the world as it is remains the first step of any non-hedonistic doctrine.
A few things
-it stopped being a small exclusive thing and had to adapt to the mass market so to speak - mysticism tends to be far more elitist.
-People like Aristotle were more influential than Plato
-Muslims and Tzars Cucking Othrodoxy
-The protestant reformation and the corruption of Catholic monasteries
>How did Christianity lose its spirituality?
Not Christianity, Protestantism.
The Reformation's theological war against monasticism, because politics and monasteries with land.
>People today believe the Bible, a book written over thousands of years by different people using different languages is the "word of God" instead of believing that Jesus is the word of God as many Catholics still do today.
Christ founded a Church and not the Bible, but good luck getting people who believe in Sola Scriptura and at the same time remove books off the Bible to understand that.
Thats kind of proof though, that the best example of Christian spirituality is limited to a small practice - certainly not one that forms a core component of lay worship- within an already small group.
OP you're retarded.
It's the other way around.
Satan quickly corrupted the faith by mixing it with pagan traditions and philosophies, that's the birth of Roman Catholicism.
The Reformation was a return to true early pure Biblical Christianity based on the study of scripture, not mindless rituals or repetitions.
Secondly, gnosticism is a satanic heresy meant to undermine Christianity.
The devil wants you to believe that Jesus was
>"just a man"
>"an enlightened avatar"
>"a great teacher"
They completely ignore the fact that Jesus HIMSELF said that HE was God. If you've seen Him, you've seen the Father.
Now what is pure/true Christianity? Followers of Christ believe that we are pilgrims in enemy territory (Satan's kingdom since the Fall). Our spirit fights against the sinful flesh with all its lusts.
We believe in Jesus Christ as LORD & SAVIOUR, that He died for our sins.
God did all the work - we simply have to believe. Salvation is a gift.
As to your question, Christianity lost its spirituality because Pauline truth was quickly lost and not recovered until the Reformation.
Catholics view early Christianity as in around 300 AD with the "church fathers".
Protestants go back further, to Paul's journey in Acts.
The early Christians were not Catholic at all.
Catholicism was a later invention by Rome in order to make the religion more attractive to the pagan masses.
The Church existed and practiced before Constantine and the theology was the same. The bible and sola scriptura itself is unscriptual and something that itself was a product of apostolic succession
And who do you think wrote the Bible? God Himself and revealed to Luther in 1517?
Or a number of different authors over several decades as decided by His Church in accordance to the tradition set up by Christ Jesus?
While I will admit that the majority of current churches today are not doing what they ought, the reason for this has been a fault of the degeneration of society through the media.
You have the media showing murder, adultery, strife, all kinds of evil, the the major players in it have always had an occult link or outright satanic undertones.
Part of the degeneration of society led to this degeneration of the churches as pastors tried to reach out or hold on to these people who were so accustomed to exposure to these things that it's what they began to enjoy.
>>558343 also has it right in terms of Satan attempting to corrupt the faith, except now he attempts to also corrupt the mind through violent media, or blowing up fantastic lies in the form of star wars and such.
>hurr we compiled the Bible!
Manuscripts were widely in circulation before the councils happened.
The councils didn't mean shit, they simply reaffirmed what every believer already knew.
>what is the Textus Receptus
And compiling =/= writing the Bible
Catholics add uninspired books like the Apocrypha. They also use the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and Vulgate.
Orthodoxy is basically Catholicism lite.
It doesn't have 1 figure at the top, and it has Biblical priests/elders at every local church (just as Paul set up throughout Asia minor).
But it's still heavily centered around creeds and man's traditions.
Protestants > Orthodoxy > Catholicism
From least corrupt to most corrupt.
>The councils didn't mean shit
I'll bet you're a stupid Nestorian or an Arian or a Gnostic or some other retard heretic
>Manuscripts were widely in circulation before the councils happened.
Yeah, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Gospel of Judas.
Oh wait, those aren't canon. I wonder what that word means.
Protestants base their ideology on Paul's teachings (the last apostle).
Catholics base their ideology on Constantine's conversion, 300 years later.
Catholics like to pretend and role-play that their church was founded by Peter, but there is no historical evidence for that at all.
The Bible never mentions Peter going to Rome, infact it says that Peter remained in Judea/Jerusalem.
Paul was the apostle to teach the gentiles.
Peter was the apostle for the Jews.
Catholicism took the rationalist trend as opposed to Orthodoxy's mysticism. That said, the monastic life that is the main draw between Buddhism and Christianity was largely shut down by the Reformation in Europe. The Reformation was not only anti-clerical but anti-monastic so Europe's contemplative tradition is more older material and thus harder to get into for the Catholic parts of Europe that retained the monastic tradition despite. There was exceptions though. The Imitation of Christ is the standard go-to book for Catholic ascetic, akin to Orthodoxy's Ladder of Divine Ascent. More recently there is Thomas Merton who is a mid-20th century contemplative and fantastic author on both the western tradition and it in comparison to Eastern religions.
>putting all Protestants into 1 category
I agree that many denominations got it wrong, I never said that Protties are right and Catlicks are wrong.
But the truth/pure form of Christianity is in certain Protestant denominations, not in the Roman church.
And Protestants recognize that because man is inherently sinful and flawed, we will never find out the perfected truth or the 'ultimate' church that has it all.
What we have is many local churches, all part of the Body of Christ or the universal Church.
We all believe in the fundamental truths of the gospel (Christ's deity, death and Resurrection, etc) and the differences between denominations are mostly minor things.
Protestants are not so zealous
The Papacy was more interested in power & politics than upholding scriptural truth. It was a spiritually dead and corrupt church that goes around calling others heretics and burning them at the stakes for not worshipping the queen of heaven Semiramis/Ishtar aka "Mary".
>Catholics base their ideology on Constantine's conversion
what ideology is that?
>The Bible never mentions
What makes you think that the Bible is the only source of authority? Who decided what books got to go into the Bible?
Who decides what certain verses mean? You?
God certainly. Do you claim to know his will?
Nope, the Reformation was further perversion of any damage done by Catholicism. In the pic here, an example of this
>Protestants are not so zealous.
Damn straight. They don't even Crusade.
>the differences between denominations are mostly minor things
either you're really brainwashed or that's a fucking lie
This is cringeworthy. There is NEVER a concept of a closed "canon" in the sense of a defined set of books. The canon was fluid and included these so called "apocrypha" for crying out loud. In fact, the Jews at the time of Jesus don't even have a single defined closed canon. It's instead open and fluid.
The pure form of Christianity cannot be found in Protestantism. Show me an actual scholar that says otherwise
>Catholics add uninspired books like the Apocrypha.
Add to what?
The Tanakh's canon was not closed by Jesus' contemporaries, but by later followers of Judaism.
The word apocrypha was introduced by St. Jerome, the same man that gave the world the Bible, with them in it, for crying out loud.
>It was a spiritually dead
Then why ban monasticism?
>not worshipping the queen of heaven Semiramis/Ishtar aka "Mary"
"from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)
Is that the way the Bible taught you to bless Mary, Mr. Sola Scriptura?
>believe in 6000 years
>believe in creation
>pope believes in evolutionism
>pope believes in aliens
>says you don't need to believe in God to go to heaven
>says gays are OK, who am I to judge?
>believes in ecumanicalism and "coexistance"
Protestants are more zealous than Cuckolics senpai
OP here, I suppose what I'm ultimately asking is how did the figure of Jesus cease being a living active force and instead become a superficial historical figure who said some cool stuff?
People say the reformation is what changed everything, but in Catholicism the message of Jesus was severly overlooked which is what originally led Martin Luther to change things up.
We got actual history for that. Any historian will tell you that Peter indeed been to Rome. How do we know this? Because of records by the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and the fact that we found the remains of Peter and even a 2nd century shrine dedicated to him, further solidifying this. Now then, answer the question you irrational fallacious Prot
>Freemasons/Luciferians/Satanists control the world
>mainstream media portrays Catholicism in a good light
>Pope is loved by the seculars and heathens
Gee I wonder why.
If Catholicism was the truth, then why is it friends with occult forces?
The truth is always attacked and suppressed, and guess which Christians are always mocked, ridiculed and ignored?
>show me by scripture alone
Why only scripture?
We don't have the same tunnel vision you do. That said, it's in there as unimportant as the issue is.
>“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).
>inb4 I can't ctrl-f tldr lololol
irrelevant, the church fathers were the descendants of heretics who believed in child baptism and pagan traditions
>shrine dedicated to him
irrelevant, and also idolatry
>remains of Peter
Did you forget the recent trip the Pope made to America?
Protestants are mocked because they are the true Christians.
Satan doesn't want you to believe in a literal 6000 creation.
Satan wants you to believe in billions of years, monkeys, rocks and soup stories.
Good. By saying that the Church Fathers are all heretics, you basically are doing the same as the Gnostics which fought against them. Genius! It also means that God is so incompetent at protecting his own people that he did nothing for over a thousand years before delivering the truth....such that we don't even know what it says to begin with!
>mainstream media portrays Catholicism in a good light
have you even been paying attention?
The "sex scandal" shit has been going on for a decade now, all while the abuse rate in the clergy is significantly less than that found in the damned public school system!
>how did the figure of Jesus cease being a living active force and instead become a superficial historical figure who said some cool stuff?
The relentless attack on the Deity of Jesus Christ, waged against the Apostolic Churches throughout these two millennia, today it is as intense as it's ever been with all the proddies going Unitarians, Islam, Counter-Missionary Judaism that wants Jews not to believe in the New Testament, and any combination of those.
If Jesus is God there you have your living active force.
No you retard.
God is not incompetent.. True Christians have always existed even during the darkest hours of Papal rule.
Catholics gave them all sorts of labels and names in order to make it appear that they were just cults/heretics, but they were infact Bible-believing Christians.
Waldensians alone predate Catholicism, and they believe in sola scriptura.
The media hates the Catholic Church. They even paint the pope as a hippie cuck. Yes he wants open borders and shit but he isn't as lefty as the media paints him to be. It is also painted by pop fedoras as anti science when the actual truth is more complex. Protestants in contrast are mocked for their stupidity like being anti science, thinking shit like Harry Potter is Satanic, bad theology and logical fallacies.
>Pope goes to America
>friendly walks and talks with Obama
>tons of security
>media talks good about him
Have YOU been paying attention?
Satan loves Catholicism because he made it. It's his counterfeit version of Christianity.
>implying the media isn't leftist and liberal
>implying the media isn't pushing for open borders, multiculturalism and SJW tumblrinaism
The Vatican is paving the way for ecumanicalism and the Antichrist.
>All religions are the same guys!
>It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Buddhist or Muslim! We all worship the same God!
The lukewarm and carnal bullshit is coming straight from the Catholic church.
And yeah, I'm aware of some degenerate Protestant churches too.
irish roman-catholic here
not really practicing any more, just learned some simple morality stuff on sundays for most of my life.
mother is a faith healer who constantly insists that she has no part in the healing process, and that god will will be done regardless and she's just there for moral support. often speaks of people she prayed over who were in coma's and shit who were going to have their organs donered popping up out of there beds only a little bit fucked up the next day. what do you make of that /his/?
The Waldnesians only arose in the Middle Ages. No evidence of them in Early Christianity! Paulicans don't even believe in the Trinity and have Gnostic elements in their beliefs. The Nestorians aren't even Protestant and are more closer to the Oriental Orthodox. A simple wiki search shows the earliest instance of the so called Brethren arose in the Middle Ages.
>they were infact Bible-believing Christians
How were Nestorians believers in sola scriptura, exactly?
Where in the Bible did the Paulicians get their Evil Spirit doctrine from?
>Waldensians alone predate Catholicism
Peter Waldo lived in the 12th century.
>Nestorians were right!!
>the divine and human natures of Christ are separate!!
lol you're trolling
>literally fuck the Old Testament, the heresy
>basically just another physical world and human body hating Gnostic cult talking about the Demiurge
you really have no clue what you're talking about
>Paulicians don't even believe in the Trinity and have Gnostic elements in their beliefs
t. Catholic sources
Everything that's been said about the Paulicians all come from their enemies.
Yep, totally no agenda or bias at all..
The same shit has been said about Marcion but then it appears that he was just a grace believer and all of the Catholic accusations were unfounded and false.
and what? you think the laity in silly eastern religions practice hardcore meditation and shit?
no, they drop a nickel in the bucket, clap their hands, say ramadamadingdong and go on shitting in the streets as per their lay cultural traditions.
The Vatican only said that Muslims worship God the Father. It doesn't mean they are right. And let's face it, not being judgemental of non Christians is better than the shit Protestants do such as deceiving Hindu and Buddhists by mistranslating Scriptures, pissing in their places of worship, being corrupt, having degenetate worship and oppressing others when they have the chance. We see a lot of this in South Korea!
Are you implying the Papacy was not interested in power & politics?
It cared more about keeping its power than upholding scriptural truth.
The pope literally gave out orders to kings and princes, it was a secular political institution.
And historians are pretty much clear that they have heterodox elements in their beliefs. Even then this excuse is pathetic since we can say the same for the Gnostics! In fact here's a simple thing, find me a serious scholar who actually believes in the crap you sprouted. Go on, do it! No apologetical or religious publishers allowed.
The Real History of the evil Roman Catholic Church
Detailed Documentary Exposing Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic and Islamic Connection
Counterfeit Christianity: Exposing the Satanic System
>child baptism is unscriptural
you know the guy who invented sola scriptura was a child baptiser, right?
>It cared more about keeping its power than upholding scriptural truth.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
>it was a secular political institution
do you even know what the word secular means?
I said non religious and apologetic publications. How hard is this?
Reposting since this is being slid by butthurt catlicks
The Real History of the evil Roman Catholic Church
Detailed Documentary Exposing Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic and Islamic Connection
Counterfeit Christianity: Exposing the Satanic System
My argument is not predicated on my insult, and so I have committed no fallacy.
Learn to use the words before you speak them.
>As Jesus said, get out of her
That was Jeremiah who said that.
Maybe you're thinking this.
But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst of the people, he came out of him without doing him any harm.
JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED
>True Christians have always existed even during the darkest hours of Papal rule.
Ok, and what archeological evidence do you have for your "true christians"?
Gnostics. They actually existed around these parts at one point. Nothing to do with protestantism.
You know those still exist right?
Broad label for a variety of groups on all sides of the christian spectrum.
And other stuff the Gnostics also believed in such as, the bread and wine in the Eucharist being mere bread and wine, predestination,opposition to apostolic succession and disbelief in free will. Stay mad puppet
>I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
-Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405)
>worshipping the queen of heaven Semiramis/Ishtar aka "Mary"
lol, are you being facetious or are there people on /his/ who actually fall for this XIX century tinfoil propaganda?
>the bread and wine in the Eucharist being mere bread and wine
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Is this the one part you decide to not take literally or something?
>the bread and wine in the Eucharist being mere bread and wine
If Calvin’s ideas on Church authority were a surprise to me, his thoughts on the sacraments were shocking. Unlike Evangelicals, who treat the theology of the sacraments as one of the “non-essentials,” Calvin thought they were of the utmost importance. In fact, he taught that a proper understanding of the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. This was the thesis of his very first theological treatise in French (Petit traicté de la Sainte Cène, 1541). Frustrated by Protestant disagreement over the Eucharist, Calvin wrote the text in an attempt to unify the movement around one single doctrine.
Calvin, however, taught that the Eucharist provides “undoubted assurance of eternal life.”5 And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.
Well, duh. Taken from Augustine.
>opposition to apostolic succession
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3
>disbelief in free will.
Well, duh. As i said, ripped from Augustine
Stay mad in being a bastard impostor that even the Early Reformers would condemn for being a fake christian.
So did Calvin believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. You are telling me what I already know. My main argument is that he did not even believe that there is a change in the elements. Luther in contrast did. Augustine's ideas and Calvin's are two differing worlds. Pick up Schaff and see how he notes a distinction between Augustinianism and Calvinism and notes that they are not the same. Augustine also believed in free will and yet paradoxically, predestination as well. And of course, all that part about Apostolic Succession I'll concede my generalization. However, their doctrines and that of the Early Christians are two different things. With regards to Scripture and Tradition, ANS Lane shows how the two are different.
Living conditions getting better over time means more attraction to materialism means less spirituality means religion stops becoming a spiritual lifestyle and becomes a mere tradition.
At this point many "religious" people are really just looking for cold answers to how and why things happen, and believe in God as that big guy up there who will give you whatever you like because you're naturally awesome, and your enemies are assholes who are going to Hell.
without the Bible, you would have no clue about who Jesus was, or what Jesus said
unless you're one of those "i believe all words in the Bible attributed to Jesus, but everything else is just uninspired writings" people
False. That can be known through Tradition and the regula fidei. Irenaeus shows how the illiterate Babarians without Scripture can actually recognize heresy and avoid them. This is because what Scripture and Tradition says are one and the same thing. Tradition also give is a lens to grasp the written word to begin with and literally in some sense is what formed the Bible.
at the moment, and wow I can't believe how cruel and corrupt the Catholic church was..
How can anyone defend the inquisition, crusades, tortures, murder and crimes of the Papacy during the middle ages?
How is any of those things Christian?
>Again, this happened Exactly 42 prophetic months, or 1260 years, or a time, and time, and dividing a time after the Papacy began its powerful reign as a "woman on a beast" that the Pope did finally "...go into captivity" by the military of that day, and later did in fact die because of the actions brought forth by the "sword" or military strength of Napoleon.
So I looked up "prophetic month" and it turns out that it's a made-up term based on a prophecy on Jerusalem not quite panning out.
It's not. Protestantism is "materialist" Christianity. Materialism is the opposite of spirituality. If you consider Luther a prophet, you're not christian. If you don't, you're not a protestant. Simple as that.
Protestantism dumbed Christianity down to "FOLLOW THE TEXT."
I'm sorry, but pretending to be possessed by the holy spirit by speaking gibberish and talking loudly in a hamfisted way isn't "spirituality"
It sure makes some DAMN good rock and roll/soul/gospel/what have you though...
I wouldn't mind going to a service like this, especially the white one, looks like it came out of Huckleberry Finn
God Bless the USA
I think the mega-church thing is primarily in America. There are many Christian traditions that remains all around the world that have strong components of mysticism and contemplation.
Our humanity being disgusting immoral and evil owes a lot to gnosticism which was strongly dualist. That is, the soul/spirit was holy and the body was evil.
He isn't. His doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura are nowhere to be found in Early Christianity.
At least he isn't as shitty as the Calvinists and at least originally wanted to do the right thing, which ended up to shit!
>pure forms of Christianity
>How can anyone defend the inquisition, crusades, tortures, murder and crimes of the Papacy during the middle ages?
Because the mudslimes deserved it. Shame they didn't wipe them all out.
But really, because it happened in the Middle Ages
Also, the chalcedonian schism happened in 451.
And let's not forget the Church of the East.
I consider myself a Buddhist but having lived in east Asia (Taiwan, Japan) I can tell you that the vast majority of common lay Buddhists/Taoists/Shintoists go to a temple on New Years to clap their hands and wish for good luck or maybe if they're "really" religious will go to the temple to pray before a final exam or wedding or something. Not meditating on the Pali canon or sitting in zazen under waterfalls all day. Real mysticism has always been for those willing to put heavy effort into it, while the plebs get the very basics.
Under an ideal Christian view of history, the crusades were not necessary as heathens could be converted. Under a practical view of history, pagans of history X must be converted to pagans of history Y.
>and what? you think the laity in silly eastern religions practice hardcore meditation and shit?
I didnt say or imply any of that, I only said that the limited application of heysarchism is proof that Christianity has lost/has only a tiny spiritual/mystical element to it.
How other religions practice literally has no bearing on my point.
Nestorians believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the problem was that they emphasized the separation of the human and divine natures so much that it was implied that they were distinct. It also didn't help that they denied the title of the Theotokos regarding the Virgin Mary.
It's always been a feature of human religion that when a new anti-establishment cult gains enough followers it becomes a state sanctioned institution and an esoteric cult of the esoteric cult develops made up of a fringe minority who claim to have a teaching that surpasses that given to the ordinary layman. When the establishment gets fed up persecutions ensue, it has happened with Christianity (Gnostics), Islam (Sufis), and Buddhists (Tantra).
>And nowadays they use atheism
Only in your retarded, delusional fantasy world.
"Not of this world" is right, Christians never learn anything about the actual social world, they hide from it.
>all this projecting
I'm not saying I'm oppressed, you moron, I'm saying Christians are wrong about everything when they judge social relations. I'm saying you're just stupid and misunderstand things.
Typical of a Christian though to get into obscure, nonsense psychoanalyzing when he can't make a point though. That's the only tool in your arsenal, abuse it well my friend.
>a league exists
You didn't even read the summary, did you?
They were a critically important organization in the formative years of the Soviet Union under Stalin.
You stupid pleb.
>It propagated atheism and scientific achievements, conducted 'individual work' (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them of atheism, which could be followed up with harassment if they failed to comply).
>Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag.
>The LMG had reduced the number of religious communities of all faiths from 50,000 in 1930 to 30,000 by 1938 and 8,000 by 1941. The last figure includes, however, 7,000 communities in the annexed western territories (so that only 1,000 actually remained in the rest of the country).
I'd say you'd love to do this, fedorist. The Martyrs will cry tears of joy, the cretins tears of molten lead.
Militant atheists will be removed should they ever try again.
It's extremely to figure out that all holy books are heavily altered by watching films with subtitles in a different language, often the words and sentences are completely different in order for more smoother speech in a different language. I cannot believe how fucking stupid the cunts out there are who say their holy books have never been altered after having known this logic for long time. Holy fuck it's common sense, everyone who knows two languages should instantly realise that the Quran and bible are heavily altered.
Nice post. I'm an agnostic who is almost fully convinced God exists since he's answered my prayers frighteningly accurately. I've been wondering what is a good Christian church which is closest to the original Christianity. Can you please tell me? I've been considering eastern (Assyrian church) or Greek Orthodox.
>Early Christianity was replete with various philosophical and Gnostic ideas possibly influenced by various other religions including Buddhism, Hinduism.
No. Gnosticism was always viewed as heresy by the church and Buddism and Hinduism are too far away to be considered influences, not to mention there are no early Christian documents that mention Buddism or Hinduism.
>Early Christians that there were numerous "mysteries" which Jesus was the key to unlocking,
Western Christianity has had a more legalistic view towards things like this. The Eastern Church has a more mystical view.
>but today Jesus is treated more as a santa claus figure but the human condition is seen as disgusting, immoral and even evil.
Regardless of "the human condition" having no real definition, Christianity has always seen life as sinful and filled with suffering. It can be disgusting, it very often is immoral, and sometimes it is evil, but that's not what modern Christianity views life as.
>How did Christianity lose its spirituality?
3. Christian apologetics
Well eastern Christianity has plenty of modern spirituality still. Western Christianity has always had a foot more in the door of scholastic thought rather than mysticism however I would say the anti-monastic movements of the Reformation killed the mysticism element considerably.
>No. Gnosticism was always viewed as heresy by the church
This is debatable, at the very least some Gnostic ideas seemed to penetrate the Christian mainstream, It also seems clear that some Christan communities had access to various esoteric Jewish traditions no longer present in the Greek and Latin Christianity.
So while pure Gnosticism was probably always considered heretical, it various ideas associated with Gnosticism were already present in the early church, and Gnosticism's influence can still be felt in some areas
This is so much bullshit.
The Catholic church was spiritually dead and corrupt to the core. The Papacy was a power-hungry political institution.
The Reformation brought a REVIVAL of spiritual Christianity, all the way from 16th to 18th century.
The King James Bible is praised as one of the best literary works of the English language.
Then there is the recovery of Pauline truth and Dispensationalism.
There is nothing spiritual about the Papacy.
>Ad populum logical fallacy
The consensus in Germany was Nazism.
The consensus in Russia was Communism.
Consensus doesn't mean shit.
The consensus among Bible-believing Christians is that the RCC is the Whore of Babylon.
Religion is man seeking God.
Christianity is God seeking man.
It is not any form of spirituality, maybe in orthodoxy you have elements of mysticism, but it is purely the direct revelation of God towards man.
This video sums up the whole theology pretty good.
You need to watch "A Tale of Two Churches".
It covers Christian history from the time of the apostles all the way to Darby.
It explains why Catholicism is wrong (aswell as its true identity as a crypto-pagan religion) and it also shows the flaws of the many Protestant denominations.
The point is, true Christianity is not some organized organization. The moment you "systematize" beliefs, spirituality dies.
The Bible and the Holy Spirit within you is all you need. The rest will come by itself.
Did you guys know that even pagans that die for Christ get into the Life?
It's called the baptism of blood the strongest one there is.
And yet you yell at each other who is going and who isn't going to heaven, who Jesus loves and who Jesus hates... but most churches would not welcome Jesus in if they didn't know it was Him.
I don't say to an orthodox to drop his religion, because there is nothing to trade with... but neither I say protestant, Catholic go now convert else Jesus will hate you forever...
Don't do that, it's anti-Christian. Jesus love us before we accept him, forgives us before we do anything - it is Life by grace not by the virtue of our gestures.
Live by example and just give the ideas of the right church configuration to others do not insist.
The only ones that twist facts are Catholics.
Just a simple look at Papal history and all its terrible crimes in the Middle Ages speaks volumes.
Remember when Jesus said to torture people with terrible machinations? Yeah, neither did I.
My side is peer reviewed history. Once I read a good piece that fits that criteria and supports that view I might be on your side.
Until then I'll say your pedaling ahistorical nonsense
I had to watch about fifty seconds of that to dismiss it as ahistorical nonsense.
The catholic church was not simply created when Constantine came around, its institutions such as bishops were in place by the 2nd century, as was the veneration of saints. The papacy itself you can argue about as Catholics and Orthodox do, but in general the church as an institution predates the legalization of Christianity by hundreds of years
If that is the case than Christianity was crypto pagan from the 2nd generation onward, and its these same crypto pagans who wrote the bible.
I'll happily admit they absorbed ideas from the Greeks and Romans, sure, but it happened almost from the beginning
>The Reformation brought a REVIVAL of spiritual Christianity, all the way from 16th to 18th century.
Please, please do explain the Protestant Anti-Monasticism social war then. And then tell me
Fantastic poetic translations are not spirituality.
every self-proclaimed christian girl is like any other girl : a whore in disguise.