SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
@gordon 2. You asked this question in the other thread, and it precisely nailed some thoughts that had been running around in my head for a few days. It also underlies a point of much contention and angst here in the spiritual forum from believers and non-believers alike. I'd like to address it as you worded it very succintly.
Here's my stand on the matter. The Gospel itself is a concept that is so simple a child can understand it. That is not an accident, it's by design. It isn't and never was for only those with a PhD in theology to "get".
Christianity, literally "Christ-like," is just as simple to understand. How can't it be. The example he set for us to live by is easily comprehendible through a reading of just the 4 Gospels. Acts and Romans go on to further reinforce them. None of that is incomprehensible nor even difficult to comprehend. It's simple.
You assert "It is very complex..." What everyone witnesses here, and what is a thorn to many on the outside looking in on these discussions is they know the Gospels and even the Bible, even the unbelievers. They know the themes, the contexts, and they know what "Christ-like" is supposed to look like and they know it's not complicated, complex or incomprehensible. Then they look at the discussions here and they are incomprehensible. What's more they are purposefully incomprehensible. If it is not purposeful then how does one explain how a poster can comprehend a simple post and then respond in an incomprehensible manner. Clearly the poster can comprehend simple thoughts. Is it reasonable to expect that the same poster is incapable of conveying simple thoughts? So I ask, to what end? Why would someone take a simple, life giving message and make it incomprehensible?
Even if one grants the notion that Christianity IS complex, which I obviously don't, but if you believe it indeed edifies, conveys hope, and carries the message of life, why make it even more complex instead of simple? What purpose is served by making it more inaccessible, more incomprehensible, more difficult to attain? Do people who understand the basic Gospel and what Christ-like is supposed to look like, whether they believe it or not, whether they buy into it or not, at least see it exemplified in these discussions, or do they see just another example of frauds?
Listen, I get that with "Christianity" in a theology context, you can follow that down the rabbit hole as deep as you want to go and I won't say you shouldn't. I will just say maybe ask yourself if you need an audience to do so, and consider having those discussions through private messages. If you need an audience to discuss deep theological theory, then it ain't about the discussion but about how you want to be perceived by the audience.
I'll say this from my personal experience. I've spent a lot of time and effort going down theological rabbit holes: prophecy, apologetics, church history to a minor extent. There was no life for me in any of it. I may have well been studying chemistry.
The only life I've found is in the simplicity of the Gospel. Every other 'study' is playing spiritual whack-a-mole, hoping to hit The Spiritual Life. The Gospel IS the spiritual life. It's the simplest concept of any of it, yet living it is all consuming and all rewarding. That's where the life is and I submit that's what we should be sharing, because that's what people not only need, but are truly looking for. They just are burnt out on the fraudulent stuff masking itself as 'christianity'. They ain't stupid. They know they will know the real thing when it shows itself. They just ain't seeing it.
Did you ever consider that Christianity as we know it is not simple. It is very complex--even though we might not want to admit it.
Here's my stand on the matter. The Gospel itself is a concept that is so simple a child can understand it. That is not an accident, it's by design. It isn't and never was for only those with a PhD in theology to "get".
Christianity, literally "Christ-like," is just as simple to understand. How can't it be. The example he set for us to live by is easily comprehendible through a reading of just the 4 Gospels. Acts and Romans go on to further reinforce them. None of that is incomprehensible nor even difficult to comprehend. It's simple.
You assert "It is very complex..." What everyone witnesses here, and what is a thorn to many on the outside looking in on these discussions is they know the Gospels and even the Bible, even the unbelievers. They know the themes, the contexts, and they know what "Christ-like" is supposed to look like and they know it's not complicated, complex or incomprehensible. Then they look at the discussions here and they are incomprehensible. What's more they are purposefully incomprehensible. If it is not purposeful then how does one explain how a poster can comprehend a simple post and then respond in an incomprehensible manner. Clearly the poster can comprehend simple thoughts. Is it reasonable to expect that the same poster is incapable of conveying simple thoughts? So I ask, to what end? Why would someone take a simple, life giving message and make it incomprehensible?
Even if one grants the notion that Christianity IS complex, which I obviously don't, but if you believe it indeed edifies, conveys hope, and carries the message of life, why make it even more complex instead of simple? What purpose is served by making it more inaccessible, more incomprehensible, more difficult to attain? Do people who understand the basic Gospel and what Christ-like is supposed to look like, whether they believe it or not, whether they buy into it or not, at least see it exemplified in these discussions, or do they see just another example of frauds?
Listen, I get that with "Christianity" in a theology context, you can follow that down the rabbit hole as deep as you want to go and I won't say you shouldn't. I will just say maybe ask yourself if you need an audience to do so, and consider having those discussions through private messages. If you need an audience to discuss deep theological theory, then it ain't about the discussion but about how you want to be perceived by the audience.
I'll say this from my personal experience. I've spent a lot of time and effort going down theological rabbit holes: prophecy, apologetics, church history to a minor extent. There was no life for me in any of it. I may have well been studying chemistry.
The only life I've found is in the simplicity of the Gospel. Every other 'study' is playing spiritual whack-a-mole, hoping to hit The Spiritual Life. The Gospel IS the spiritual life. It's the simplest concept of any of it, yet living it is all consuming and all rewarding. That's where the life is and I submit that's what we should be sharing, because that's what people not only need, but are truly looking for. They just are burnt out on the fraudulent stuff masking itself as 'christianity'. They ain't stupid. They know they will know the real thing when it shows itself. They just ain't seeing it.
Last edited: