Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn’t ask his sheep for a vote.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Yeah you’re missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you’re not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you’re functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn’t emerge until only 500 years ago.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
“My perspective” reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as “ecumenism” or “invisible church” in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn’t ask his sheep for a vote.
Yeah you’re missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you’re not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you’re functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn’t emerge until only 500 years ago.
“My perspective” reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as “ecumenism” or “invisible church” in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.