FreeZone- my protest

pollywog

Patron with Honors
Re: They are all Freezoners to me ...

Not all who profess themselves as 'christian' believe any such thing. Details matter greatly when it comes to understanding & knowledge.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you for this post. Please elaborate vis-a-vis Christian doctrine that is NOT about "Jesus dying for our sins." I do not consider myself Christian but I thought that was the central core of their beliefs...

Thanks.
 
Re: They are all Freezoners to me ...

Thank you for this post. Please elaborate vis-a-vis Christian doctrine that is NOT about "Jesus dying for our sins." I do not consider myself Christian but I thought that was the central core of their beliefs...

Thanks.

It's the central core of the nicene creed. What has become commonly understood as 'orthodox christian dogma' is simply the enforced teachings of the creed as developed by the catholic church in 4th century. Earlier christians were far less uniform in their views of jesus. The later uniformity in dogma was the direct result of active political suppression on the part of the Roman catholic church.

It should also be remembered that the 'initial' principle division of the christian world into the western catholic & eastern orthodox major schisms did not occur until the 11th century. Thus the enforced political ideology implicit in the nicene creed from the 4th century is common to both major branches of modern christianity, but does not reflect the diversity of views originally held by christians, or increasingly among the more 'liberal', or alternately 'less traditional', interpretations of christian theology as it exists today.

Since the beginnings of the movement in the jewish community of the 1st century there have been divergent views of the role of jesus. For example, the original christian church was a completely orthodox jewish christian church. They fully observed jewish custom, law, practice, and views on the nature of god as they were understood at the time and as was supposedly taught to them by jesus himself.

In accordance with all the traditional information and such historical information as apparently exists (not much), Jesus himself, throughout his entire life, was completely orthodox in his observance as a jew. He confined his teachings to the jewish community. His teachings were completely orthodox, although somewhat radical in their social & cultural implications for traditional judaism, by the standards of jewish law & tradition. Nor did he include gentiles in his following. Jesus was a jew who taught a radical social yet orthodox view of judaism and he taught it to jews exclusively.

[It was largely because of jesus' apparent complete adherence to jewish practice & law that the sanhedrin were unable to find a basis to proceed against him under jewish law. Accordingly, those who sought for political reasons to eliminate him as a disruptive social factor among the jewish community did so by interesting the Roman authorities in him as a possible political dissident & threat to Roman imperium. ]

In the view of the original jewish church the messiah, that was the traditional jewish role that jesus was believed to fullfil, was a divine emissary but was not in himself divine. Those, like paul, who held to a divine status for jesus were among the original heretics.

The repression of the jewish rebellions by Rome resulted in the jewish christian church, which was based in jerusalem the center of jewish culture, being destroyed as 'collateral damage'. Accordingly, the cultural traditions of judaism lost dominance within christianity and the traditions and views current among gentiles became increasingly to dominate the early christian movement. These were largely led by disciples of paul of tarsus.

Paul left commentary in his epistles on his own expulsion from the nascent christian movement as being the basis of his later 'ministry' among the gentiles. The jewish christians had refused to listen to his heretical views on the divinity of christ and the supplanting of jewish law, often resorting to treating him with physical violence. Accordingly he was excommunicated from the jewish christian church. Subsequently paul went to preach among the gentiles. Arguably, he was the original christian heretic and the principle founder of what has today been taken to be 'orthodox' christianity. :)

Over the next two centuries many differing views of christian doctrine developed among various gnostic and other local schools of christians. Many of these different schools held to differing interpretations on the precise role of jesus in christianity. With the political consolidation of the 'christian church' as the official religion of constantinian Rome most of these divergent views were later held to be 'heretical' and forcibly eradicated. But again, that process didn't begin until the mid 4th century, over three hundred years after the events of jesus' life. Moreover, that process of creation & declaration of religious 'orthodoxy' was driven primarily by the political objectives of the Roman empire of the time.

Many educated christians today, as a result of their own attempts to make sense of both traditional christianity and their own knowledge of the discoveries of the modern world, have derived personal christian attitudes for themselves which often mimic the diverse attitudes found among the original & early christian communities. They often in their private views hold to doctrines which contradict or deny the orthodox dogmas which they have been taught by their particular sects and which evolved originally from the politically imposed dogmas of the catholic & orthodox churches in their early efforts to establish their own hierarchical dominion.

More formal ecumenical divergence is seen to be the result of a wealth of scholarship developing over the last several decades by modern liberal theologians. Their extensive reinterpretations of traditional christian teachings are the basis of much of the fundamentalist backlash clearly to be observed among their more tradition minded co-religionists. Intellectual reexamination of traditional christian theology in light of modern principles of research & science have extensively challenged traditional beliefs & doctrines, see for example the the jesus seminar. Nor have all observant christians been equally welcoming of the intellectual reinterpretation of historical christianity as it reflects upon christian doctrine & practice.


Mark A. Baker
 

Terril park

Sponsor
You are promoting an un-reformed movement, headed by individuals who were high up in Scientology.

Clearly you are mistaken.

Please give details and examples of what you consider to be " un-reformed"

A reformed movement might be brave enough to remove some of the written stuff, even make slight alterations here and there and have unanimous policy and on things which were a grey area in the Church, such as Sp declares, sexuality, ethics etc etc.

You clearly have been blind. Or asleep.

But then only an SP would want to change source materials and then we end up back on the vicious cycle! It makes the subject hard to reform.

???

There is definitely truth when critics state that the problem with Scientology, is that a lot of the materials are not Hubbards, or that source is the problem, or that the Church ARE trying to apply standard tech as much as possible. Unless something changes, this dismal scene will continue.

This is old news commented on in depth.

Thanks for answering.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Can we get back to discussing the Freezone? Some times Mark, I feel you try and derail threads a bit, so people are talking about anything but the Freezone. It might have been uniquemand that raised the issue of Christianity, or yourself even further back.

Lets not derail threads under the guise of being clever and knowledgeable about other subjects.

See, I don't think so and I'm the one who created the thread. I think that threads meander. I can prove it, in fact.

We were talking about differences in faction. I made a comparison/analogy to Xtianity. We then discussed it.

I think that if someone of whom you approved were to meander in a thread, perhaps you'd regard it differently.
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
See, I don't think so and I'm the one who created the thread. I think that threads meander. I can prove it, in fact.

We were talking about differences in faction. I made a comparison/analogy to Xtianity. We then discussed it.

I think that if someone of whom you approved were to meander in a thread, perhaps you'd regard it differently.

Fair enough. Maybe I have become FANATICAL myself about spotting 'derail' like some spot 'SP'S'
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Could be. I know that over the years on various fora, I've seen the "Derail" accusation many times. It almost ends up being like a "troll" or "OSA" accusation...it's almost a buzz phrase and I am not as fond of that as I could be...
 
Top