A Biblical Case for the Death Penalty

[Sasun]

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11,23)

 

Sasun, I know you are a well-intentioned person and I appreciate you a lot but there are elements of christianism you seem to ignore and tend to replace by your own sentimental judgements (I am not sure "sentimental" is the correct english word but I guess you understand my point) . Some of your syncretic views on religion, such as considering Christ as a man, not as God-man (if I recall what you wrote some time ago) are unacceptable from the christian standpoint. The latter is actually known as Arius' heresy which has vigorously been condemned for it reduces christianism to a simple humanistic philosophy (which it is not)

Axel, I am not sure what I have said in the past to lead to this misunderstanding Jesus Christ is the Supreme Lord of the universe and a man at the same time. He is not an ordirnary man, and his teachings are not a mere humanistic philosophy. On the other hand, Christ serves the humankind, in that sense he is the greatest humanist.

 

As to the quote, it is very true. One can be either with God or against God, there is no other position. And that is the point that Jesus makes. Also, that one should always stay with God to be permanently rid of evil. Many people think that there can be a neutral position also, but that is only a self-deception.

However, to be with God means different things to different people. There is no perfect and single correct paradigm of worship of God. Worship is a very private feeling and has a unique form with any given individual according to his inner culture. Therefore people should be let freely choose the way they feel right. That is why there are so many different religions, branches in religions, theological variations, sects, etc. It is quite possible that a person who belongs to a non Christian religion is in fact closer to Christ than the pope himself. It is not about the forms and names but the spirit and the deep understanding of God. So if I have feelings towards other religions that doesn't mean I am not with Christ. When it comes to religion and spirituality, in my understanding the heart is the most important guide. My heart tells me that if I accept Christ I cannot reject Rama, Krishna and Buddha. Deep down their teachings are about the same unique and highest Truth. Only they have different names and forms.

 

As to Judaizers, I honestly don't know what they did to earn such mistrust from Christians. Perhaps some of them had clandestine activities, but more likely not. If their only "sin" was that they soulfully prayed both in the church and synagogue then I think they were unfairly judged.

 

If you want we can discuss more in the religion thread. Actually such topics interest me more than others But don't expect me to know all religious figures and dogmas in Christianity.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Reason.com is rather leftist (not liberal; far leftists are against religion for the most part); I'm not surprised someone there speaks against the religious right (that is like being shocked that a turk says the Genocide never happened). Even ignoring that, it gives a single person's account of a piece written by followers of Falwell about a piece written by Rushdoony; that makes it, what, a 4th person account? That's still not a direct quote.

 

And back to my original point; just because a religion does not look favorably upon YOU or YOUR lifestyle does NOT make it wrong. To think that anything YOU don't agree with is automatically incorrect is a very egotistical idea.

[axel]

Sasun, some of Buddha, Krishna...'s teachings may not contradict Christianism. I am to ignorant of these to express an opinion but things like reincarnation are not acceptable. And why would we need them when we have Christ? There is a lot to explore in christianism itself and there are a lot of fascinating christian authors such as Dostoevsky among others (Have you read "The brothers Karamazov"?).

 

Judaization as its name implies is an attempt to judaize (transform as the -ize implies) christians. if you agree to this "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.", then it follows that post-christian judaism is against Christ. So judaizers following the teachings in the synagogue (not praying) are serving the anti-christian spirit. One cannot serve two opposite spirits at the same time.

[axel]

Sasun, I found the quote I was referring to and that is unacceptable from the christian standpoint in your Sri Chinmoy thread:

 

But if somebody says that he is the Saviour, the only Saviour, and that

Krishna, the Buddha and others are not Saviours, then unfortunately I

cannot agree, because I know these other great Masters as well as I

know the Christ. If we say that the Christ is the only chosen Son of

God, then we are limiting God. These other Masters did exist. These are

all God's chosen children of the highest order. They are brothers and

God, the Supreme, is their Father.

 

this is in complete contradiction with the Nicene creed:

 

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come, Amen.

[Rousas]

SASUN, as you requested:

 

Below is taken from R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I. I added in a few comments, and also added in some Biblical texts that were not in the specific section of the book which I copied this from but located elsewhere in the book. So this is not a word for word quote, but very close to it. Also, the emphasis is mine.

 

The laws concerning the death penalty can be briefly summarized:

 

Numbers 35:31: - Shall not be remitted.  {Given to Noah after the flood}

Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:26-21, 30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 24:17: - Inflicted for murder, but not for accidental killings.

Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:21-24: - For adultery.

Leviticus 20:11, 12, and 14: - For incest.

Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15, 16: - For bestiality.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13: - For sodomy or homosexuality.

Deuteronomy 22:20,21: - For unchastity.

Deuteronomy 22:25: - For rape of a betrothed virgin.

Deuteronomy 19:16-20: - For false witness in a case involving a capital offense.

Exodus 21:16: Deuteronomy 24:7: - Kidnapping.  {And enforced slavery}

Leviticus 21:9: - For a priest’s daughter who committed fornication.

Exodus 22:18: - For witchcraft.

Leviticus 20:2-5: - For offering human sacrifice.

Exodus 21:15, 17: Leviticus 20:9; Proverbs 20:20; Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10: - For striking or cursing father or mother. (It should be noted that Christ condemned the scribes and Pharisees for setting aside this law.)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: - For incorrigible delinquency or habitual criminality.

Leviticus 24:11-14, 16, 23: - For blasphemy.

Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36: - For sabbath desecration.

Deuteronomy 13:1-10: - For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines.

Exodus 22:20: - For sacrificing to false gods.

Deuteronomy 17:12: - For lawless refusal to abide by godly law and order, anti-law, anti-court attitudes and actions, that is, refusing to abide by the court decision and thus denying the law.

Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7: - Execution by the witnesses.

Numbers 15:35,36: Deuteronomy 13:9: - Execution by the congregation.

Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15: - Not inflicted on testimony of less than two witnesses.

 

At a few points the penalties were altered in the New Testament, but the basic principle of the death penalty was undergirded and set forth by Christ’s atoning death, which made clear that the penalty for man’s treason to God and departure from God’s law is death without remission.

        The blood of the altar and the fact of the altar are thus a declaration of the necessity of capital punishment.  To oppose capital punishment as prescribed by God’s law is thus to oppose the cross of Christ and to deny the validity of the altar.

As one can clearly see, there is a strong case for the death penalty on a strictly Biblical basis. And for those who think that God's law here is rather harsh, Solomon long ago wisely noted, that “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10).

 

AMERICANHYE,

As I suspected, you haven't read Rushdoony, but have read someone who claims that they have, and therefore have proclaimed the same judgment upon him without an reason or evidence for doing so. It is as if you have proclaimed Rushdoony's word as dung when you are in complete ignorance concerning his own statements and his life-long study concerning Biblical law. If you are angry with these laws, then your problem is with God's word, not R.J. Rushdoony.

[axel]

Rousas, I do not espouse the liberal views of Americ-Hye but, on the other hand, your cult seems to have more to do with orthodox judaism (with its emphasis on the letter of the old testament...) than with orthodox christianism. Where is Christ in all of this? I only see "biblical law" and a reduction of the Christian Faith to a legalistic concern.

[axel]

1 Corinthians 13

 

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Edited August 22, 2003 by axel

[Sasun]

Sasun, I found the quote I was referring to and that is unacceptable from the christian standpoint in your Sri Chinmoy thread:

 

But if somebody says that he is the Saviour, the only Saviour, and that

Krishna, the Buddha and others are not Saviours, then unfortunately I

cannot agree, because I know these other great Masters as well as I

know the Christ. If we say that the Christ is the only chosen Son of

God, then we are limiting God. These other Masters did exist. These are

all God's chosen children of the highest order. They are brothers and

God, the Supreme, is their Father.

 

this is in complete contradiction with the Nicene creed:

 

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come, Amen.

Axel, I see your point. The Necene crede (which I didn't know by its name) is true for those who have not heard of other Masters. But think about this: what of those people who are born in a non-Christian religion, or those who lived before Christ's coming. They don't have Christ, how could they have Christ. So if you believe that God is all compassionate then he would not leave mankind without a Master. Krishna came long before Christ, and his message is absolutely as powerful and divine as the message of Christ. If you were familiar I don't think you would say otherwise. Some time ago I didn't know Krishna or others, and if somebody told me what I am telling now I would say that they are wrong and their Gods are false, etc. But God is such a thing that human mind can never comprehend fully. One should always keep an open mind. When Christ came in Israel and the Western world at the time, there where hardly anyone who were remotely aware of the Masters that came before Christ. Therefore, Christ was the only way at that time.

 

To me it sounds like this: Christ represents both a goal and a path. As a goal He is absolutely unique. As a path, He is not unique, there are other paths given by other Masters. But all paths lead to the same destination - God. There is only one Truth, but we all call and understand or misunderstand it differently.

 

About Judaizers, I am suspecting that they were called such by Christians because they were viewed as stealing believers from Christianity. But if they prayed in the church then how could that be? If this is not what was happening, then maybe they did something wrong.

 

You are right saying that Jews do not accept Christ. That is a limitation. But Jews accept Christ's Father. Both Christians and Jews worship the same one God although differently. So we as Christians would say, why are they accepting the Father but not his chosen Son? We find it wrong, or rather not wrong, just a limited vision. Now if you follow the same logic, I am asking you, if you accept the Father and Christ his Son, then why don't you accept His other sons, the brothers of Christ? This is all our differences.

Yes and one more difference, for me true Christianity is only what Christ has said. What others say in the Bible may or may not be true Christianity. And I consider strict religious doctrines as limiting and not useful for ones spiritual development.

 

About reincarnation, I think it makes a lot of sense. God who has infinite compasssion and grace would not just give one lifetime chance to be a good Christian worthy of Heaven. Or if you assume that one lifetime is enough to be a good Christian then your standards are extremely lenient compared to the standards that I understand.

It is true that Christ has never explicitly said there is reincarnation. But he didn't deny it either. It doesn't really matter, whether or not there is reincarnation Christ's teaching is the same, it doesn't change what is required from us.

 

You are asking if we have Christ then why do we need others? Then I will ask you if we have Christ why is he coming for the second time?

 

And by the way, I really liked your quote from Corinthians This makes me think that if you were familiar with other Masters teachings you would like them.

Edited August 22, 2003 by Sasun

[axel]

The Necene crede (which I didn't know by its name) is true for those who have not heard of other Masters.

 

I fundamentally disagree. Anyone who rejects the Nicene creed or minors its significance cannot call himself christian.

 

But think about this: what of those people who are born in a non-Christian religion, or those who lived before Christ's coming. They don't have Christ, how could they have Christ.

 

I will quote the russian theologian Khomiakov

 

"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fulness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5:12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Savior and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14.4). "

 

and I will add:

 

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3.8)

 

You are right saying that Jews do not accept Christ. That is a limitation. But Jews accept Christ's Father. Both Christians and Jews worship the same one God although differently.

 

The sad truth of non-christian judaism is atheism Sorry, I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate on this topic.

 

You are asking if we have Christ then why do we need others? Then I will ask you if we have Christ why is he coming for the second time?

 

To find the answer, you should spend time studying our religion instead of Sri Chinmoy

[KnightOfArmenia]

LOL axel. You said just about everything I was going to say.

 

That cut my responses short so... Here's a ninja!

[axel]

[Sasun]

Axel, you are not answering my questions and I am not seeing a solid logic in your quotes. Quoting from other people is easy, but why not give a logical explanation if you have some. All these doctrines and weak constracts are not convincing for me. Particularly the quote from Khomiakov is as if a paid lawyers defence decreasing the meaning of God.

 

I fundamentally disagree. Anyone who rejects the Nicene creed or minors its significance cannot call himself christian.

 

Eh, you are so judgemental. I believe in Christ but not dogmas set up by people other than Christ. So am I a Christian or not? Why can you understand Christ in your way, but if I offer my understanding it becomes wrong?

 

At any rate, you have your faith and I have mine. Peace...

[Sasun]

SASUN, as you requested:

 

Below is taken from R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I. I added in a few comments, and also added in some Biblical texts that were not in the specific section of the book which I copied this from but located elsewhere in the book. So this is not a word for word quote, but very close to it. Also, the emphasis is mine.

Rousas, thanks for making the effort. I will get back to you later. If you were following the above discussion you will get some of my views, some of whish indirectly show how I feel about this question. In case it is going to be a problem for you please tell me beforehand. There is no need for another futile religious debate

[axel]

Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you.

 

Eh, you are so judgemental. I believe in Christ but not dogmas set up by

people other than Christ. So am I a Christian or not? Why can you understand Christ in your way, but if I offer my understanding it becomes wrong?

 

It is not "people other than Christ", it the Church that is the Body of Christ. You are not an orthodox christian, that is all I can say. This is not "my understanding", it is a commonly held view if you stick to what you have written above.

 

Anyone offering "his understanding" is quite dangerous for our judgements are sometimes altered by our subjectivity. This is how heresies were born btw.

 

May the Lord be with you.

[KnightOfArmenia]

It's not just about "believing in Christ," although that is the fundamental part of Christianity; you also have to remember that He gave authority to the Apostles, to spread the word. Everything we know of the Christ came from the same people who set up the dogma; how can you believe in Him if you don't also believe in the dogma? People simply say "Christ said love" out of ignorance; remember that he attacked the usurers in the Temple. There is more than just a simple sentence designed to make people feel good. If I say that I worship Christ as a giant winged cow who would give the Magic Milk on Armageddon, I would be worshipping him WRONG. Things like "opinions" have no sway whatsoever in the religious terms; either you are a member of a certain faith, or you aren't.

[Sasun]

it the Church that is the Body of Christ

 

He he he... Christ houses the whole universe, your church doesn't even have a tiny room for such a small individual as I am

 

Anyone offering "his understanding" is quite dangerous for our judgements are sometimes altered by our subjectivity. This is how heresies were born btw.

 

Don't be afraid my friend, there is not danger in freedom of conscience and free belief. Artificially imposed belief doesn't lead one anywhere.

 

May the Lord be with you.

 

I wish you the same

[Sasun]

It's not just about "believing in Christ," although that is the fundamental part of Christianity; you also have to remember that He gave authority to the Apostles, to spread the word. Everything we know of the Christ came from the same people who set up the dogma; how can you believe in Him if you don't also believe in the dogma? People simply say "Christ said love" out of ignorance; remember that he attacked the usurers in the Temple. There is more than just a simple sentence designed to make people feel good. If I say that I worship Christ as a giant winged cow who would give the Magic Milk on Armageddon, I would be worshipping him WRONG. Things like "opinions" have no sway whatsoever in the religious terms; either you are a member of a certain faith, or you aren't.

Each person has his/her own way of understanding, you can't change it. If you sincerely believe in a certain dogma then that is your way. If you don't believe in the dogma, how can you accept it. It would be like lying to yourself.

 

Yes, Jesus gave the authority to spread his teachings, but let's remember, no matter how good and well intentioned where the apostoles, they were not the same as Jesus himself. One of the apostoles even betrayed him. I can't help noticing that the way Christianity has evolved is quite not the same as I read directly what Jesus says in the Bible. I maybe wrong but I am right for myself, I try to understand Christ as best as I can, with or without the help of religious authorities.

[KnightOfArmenia]

And you missed the major point I was making. The Bible was not written by Christ, nor even by the Apostles who followed Him; they were written by students of the Apostles. They are second-hand reports (at best). And even these come to us THROUGH centuries of church officials, who have cut and pasted as they saw fit. So how can you read the Bible (which is what the various churches present as the writings of followers of followers of Christ) and believe that any viewpoint of Christ is your own?

 

And, even saying you did, how can you then claim that you are Christian if you do not follow the accepted Christian laws, but those that you yourself are able to divine from the Text. That is like saying you are a Muslim because you believe Mohammed is the prophet, but then going off and coming up with your own things.

 

Like I said, I could say that I believe Christ was a cow that will give us all magic milk when the world ends, which will turn us all into cows, too; this may be my BELIEF, and I may still be worshipping CHRIST, but I would NOT be a Christian. You can have your own religious views, that is accepted; but you can't come up with your own half-cocked ideas, and then claim to still be part of a major religion.

[axel]

Don't be afraid my friend, there is not danger in freedom of conscience and free belief. Artificially imposed belief doesn't lead one anywhere

 

Have I tried to a impose a belief on you? I don't see anything artificial in the Creed or everything is.

 

Free will and freedom of conscience is the core of orthodoxy but misinterpretations can be quite devastating. Each one giving his own interpretation is the reason for the current divisions among christians and the rupture of communion. I encourage you to learn about history of medieval sects to see where some misinterpretations may lead.

 

You want me to believe in your masters but at the same time you nullify the action of the Holy Spirit inside the universal Church of the early centuries.

 

This is my last message on this topic.

[Rousas]

Rousas, I do not espouse the liberal views of Americ-Hye but, on the other hand, your cult seems to have more to do with orthodox judaism (with its emphasis on the letter of the old testament...) than with orthodox christianism. Where is Christ in all of this? I only see "biblical law" and a reduction of the Christian Faith to a legalistic concern.

 

Is not the whole word of God, Christ's word? Is He not the word of God made flesh? How then is the old testament law not applicable? Did he ever contradict what was formerly written? God forbid! The mistake of the Pharisees was not the attempt to keep the law (this was a command of God), the mistake was the distortion of the law's intent. The Pharisees saw the law as the key to their salvation and practiced a work's righteousness. Christ condemned such teaching, and as Paul made clear, the patriarchs never believed that one could attain salvation through one's own works, but that all is by the grace of God. The law is the same, although in some places Christ's work on the cross finishes the need for some laws, particularly sacrificial law, as He is the lamb worthy to be slain for man's sin. Christ taught to obey the whole law of God, His law. Are we not to be holy, even as God is holy? So then, why do so many who profess in Christ's name ignore the WHOLE of God's law? Did not Christ keep the whole law of God? So then, we also are to keep the law of God with a distinct understanding that it is through Christ's work on the cross ALONE and not by our keeping of the law that we are saved. It is because of our salvation that we OUGHT to have a desire to keep God's law. It is because of our salvation that we OUGHT to do good works. This is orthodox christianity!

[America-Hye]

Rousas,

 

How do you know that this is God's law and not man's law? How do you know what Jesus truly preached? Were you there with him in his human form? Is Orthodox Christianity made of God or made by men? Orthodox Christianity was formed by the shedding of MUCH, MUCH human blood. What you deem to be heresy may be the true word of Jesus. If you execute those who do not agree with you, are you necessarily doing God's work?

 

Even those who instituted the mass execution of the Cathars considered them to be as pure as the driven snow, but execued them nevertheless for the purpose of Church unity.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Orthodoxy and Apostolic are two different beasts entirely.

 

Now, aside from the initial war against the pagans of Armenia (for good or ill, is still being debated), name whose blood the Apostolic Church has shed for itself. Go ahead.

[Rousas]

AMERICAN-HYE,

Notice that I wrote orthodox christianity and not Orthodox Christianity. I am speaking of an orthodox understanding of Scripture.

[Sasun]

And you missed the major point I was making. The Bible was not written by Christ, nor even by the Apostles who followed Him; they were written by students of the Apostles. They are second-hand reports (at best). And even these come to us THROUGH centuries of church officials, who have cut and pasted as they saw fit. So how can you read the Bible (which is what the various churches present as the writings of followers of followers of Christ) and believe that any viewpoint of Christ is your own?

 

And, even saying you did, how can you then claim that you are Christian if you do not follow the accepted Christian laws, but those that you yourself are able to divine from the Text. That is like saying you are a Muslim because you believe Mohammed is the prophet, but then going off and coming up with your own things.

 

Like I said, I could say that I believe Christ was a cow that will give us all magic milk when the world ends, which will turn us all into cows, too; this may be my BELIEF, and I may still be worshipping CHRIST, but I would NOT be a Christian. You can have your own religious views, that is accepted; but you can't come up with your own half-cocked ideas, and then claim to still be part of a major religion.

I think I understood your point. First of all, you don't know much about what I believe. First Axel said that Christ is a man for me, now you think you know what my beliefs are. Hey I don't know what exactly your beliefs are, how do you know mine?

I am not inventing things from me. I just don't see how those accepted dogmas are related to the spirit of what Jesus has said. You are saying that those are accepted. That is not enough to be true. The dogmas are telling me I MUST believe in this and that, I must behave in this and that way - none of them directly follows from Christs word. This doesn't work, that is not what true belief is about. All that because dogmas have been accepted a long time ago, and we are supposed to accept them blindly. If you are going to tell me that is the accepted law and I am cooking up my own thing, then I don't know how else to explain you. You can't coerce someone by any dogma to love God. Love is not a religious duty. And yes, Christ is about love, it is not ignorance to say so.

 

I have nothing against the apostles and religious figures who have made the dogmas, that was the best that they could do. And had it not been for them, we would probably not have a Christian religion. On the other hand, what we have now is a stagnated and exclusivistic institution that rarely inspires people. That is not Christ for me. I prefer to read the Bible myself and have my own understanding of Christ. I prefer to learn from other major religions. They are not about the person called Jesus, but they are about the same God represented by Christ. As to your cow remark, I don't even know how to answer. It seems that cow is the only thing that you know from other religions.

 

About possible distortions of what Jesus has said, yes they were quite likely to happen. But there are things that one can be confident that happened. At any rate, I am referring to the same text as most everyone else. How can everyone else be confident and I am not supposed to be confident? Likewise, if the founders of dogmas preferred to make up dogmas, isn't any individual entitled to make up his own personal dogma for the same reason as they did? What is it that has given them such authority?

 

Anyway, I hope I am being more clear now. If anyone is going to assume that I have no right to call myself a Christian, that I can tolerate, but know that nobody (whoever that be) has a right to deny Christ to someone who accepts him.

[Sasun]

Have I tried to a impose a belief on you?

 

You have not, but the church (any church) does impose by telling you shouldn't question the accepted doctrines. All that would be normal if the church didn't also tell that they are the only true church and their creed is the only true one.

 

Free will and freedom of conscience is the core of orthodoxy but misinterpretations can be quite devastating. Each one giving his own interpretation is the reason for the current divisions among christians and the rupture of communion. I encourage you to learn about history of medieval sects to see where some misinterpretations may lead.

 

Expressio of free conscience is often called misinterpretation by the church.

 

I know some things but not a lot about the sects. Violence against differing religious groups is wrong. In this case, both the church and the dissenting sects have been violent. (I am thinking violence is what you call devastating).

 

You want me to believe in your masters but at the same time you nullify the action of the Holy Spirit inside the universal Church of the early centuries.

 

I don't want you to believe any masters, it is up to you. You referred to my quote about the Masters and I was trying to explain what that meant.

I didn't say anything against the Holy Spirit, let alone nullify its action. The universal Church broke up just because of dogmas. Had the religious leaderships been more humble and not have political reasoning the universal Church would not break up.