My question is simple, when you think about the church and the body and all the things they do today what comes to mind? negative or other wise please answer.
My question is simple, when you think about the church and the body and all the things they do today what comes to mind? negative or other wise please answer.
what about the idea of institutionalized church? that being that the church functions as an classroom and the congregation is spoon feed and sits passively by being told what to believe, and in turn the sterilizes what God is trying to do?
trogool, what do you mean by an organization?
Trogool,
The fact is my view of church isn't negative because i want it to be but because it is fact.
Lol no. Your perspective /= fact. Humans are always looking at things through subjective prejudices, their rose-colored glasses, so I'm rather skeptical at your claim to be totally objective.
Also, the Constantine thing is pseudohistorical nonsense. Constantine, a saint in some churches, officially tolerated Christianity. He didn't institute any reformation of the Church.
look at how church functions and you will see it,
I don't how am I bringing an opinion on a factual bases of how church functions?
most people attend church because they think it is there God appeasing duty to gain Gods' love. people hear about unconditional love but don't actually show that they know that teaching through their actions.
and Constantine by all historians is put in to question on whether or not he was really a christian,
the fact is there were no church buildings before his empire,
and when they were formed they were molded after pagan temple of sun worship.
the man openly admitted he practiced sun worship and "converted" because of his wife, but still looked to astrologists and the sun for answers
, which is obvious in his legalization of the church then paying to have a church building built over the burial site of the saints because they were more "holy".
just because he "tolerated" Christianity that doesn't mean he did it for selfless reasons. I'm also not saying he was the soul reason of what I'm saying but was a large part of it.
I do, and I haven't.
what?
You really should avoid trying to speak for "most people". It usually doesn't turn out well.
Failing to see how this is relevant. Historians can't speak to the state of someone's soul.
Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Christianity was illegal and they were systematically hunted down and killed, could it?
Were you expecting some different architectural style to be used for some reason?
Quote needed.
Are you just making this up as you go? That makes no sense. Even in the catacomb periods, the places where the bones of martyrs were kept were venerated and used as places of worship. What you describe is merely the continuation of an established practice.
Pure speculation.
so you are telling me that the church doesn't have a teacher [pastor] and that the students [congregation] are not told what the bible says. and that Christians don't sit there week after week but rather they all gather together and ask questions and teach each other? that is what your saying you see on any given day in the whole church body?
you said I was bringing prospective to how the church functions from the lens I see through. When I was just stating how the church obviously functions.
or I just talk to lots of Christians and that is the general consensus of answers I get from people when asked why they go to church.
they can when they study his actions [fruits] after his "conversion"
Gee, it couldn't have been that he wanted to gain favor with everyone so that he becomes one of the most powerful empires of rome by what ever means possible, could it?
[i can be a smart mouth to]
It is possible that they could have continued to congregate as they normally did for 300 hundred years to that date.....
sorry I miss wrote it was his mother not his wife that had the influence on him.
a established practice of paganism
or I just studied what he did and by his fruits I see no real christian motive
I see both. I don't see why you think it is dichotomous.
Nope, nothing was "obvious" about it.
Mm, and now we've downgraded from "most people" to "lots of Christians". I wonder how many people that is, and how broad a denominational base it is.
By that standard, Emperor Constantine was truly a saint. Here's his icon and hymn:
Having seen the figure of the Cross in the heavens,
And like Paul not having received his call from men, O Lord,
Your apostle among rulers, the Emperor Constantine,
Has been set by Your hand as ruler over the Imperial City
That he preserved in peace for many years,
Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O only lover of mankind.
No, because the idea that officially tolerating and converting to a fringe, cultic religion that the State had been using as scapegoats for generations and violated Roman civic values is ludicrous.
It works better when your theory actually makes sense, though.
Secretively, in hiding, in their houses and the Roman catacombs? You do understand that the catacombs were the burial places for the poor, right?
Yes, they could have, but why would anyone do something that stupid?
So is writing, eating, bathing, incense, religious services and prayer.
Except for, you know, decreeing that Christians were free and not to be persecuted and could worship as they pleased, and converting himself, and moderating the First Ecumenical Council, and building a ton of churches and things like that. But yeah, if you ignore like his entire life after the Battle of Milvian Bridge sure, you might be able to make that case.
hudechek said:oh so people worshiped and sang him praises himthat seems pretty darn unbiblical and if he was such a saint he would of had that
Lol no, are you having a difficult time reading the hymn or something? It is clearly addressed to God.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner