NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people misascoiate the Church with Christianity itself. There are all sorts of scandals within various denominations churchs and people tar the entire of Christianity with the actions of those (Before anyone goes on the Muslim/Terrorist rant about what I am saying, that is not what this is about. I am trying to sepearte the Church as a institution from Christianity as a relgion. Of course when Christians are part of scandals they all get tarred, such is the media's way, but thats not what this is about). Jesus in his teachings never said anything about Church organisation or set up. The Church as an institution is not a requirement of the Christian faith. You dont have to go to church to be a Christian and if you do go to chuch, doesnt mean you are a Christian. I dont go to Church becasue I feel I have to, or because I feel under some kind of obligation. I go because I want to, and because I beleive that it will help me spiritually. I get a great deal from going to church that helps me in my walk through life. Thats what Church should be about. Not just a ritual, but a spirtual source of strength. If you dont find you get that from group worship then that is fine. All that matters is that you get your strength from God somehow. He suggests reading his word and prayer. Never is Church any forced implication. I would just like people to understand what Chruch is to Christians a little better here. Hopefully you can see past Non Christian, steryotypical views.

Many people misascoiate the Church with Christianity itself. There are all sorts of scandals within various denominations churchs and people tar the entire of Christianity with the actions of those (Before anyone goes on the Muslim/Terrorist rant about what I am saying, that is not what this is about. I am trying to sepearte the Church as a institution from Christianity as a relgion. Of course when Christians are part of scandals they all get tarred, such is the media's way, but thats not what this is about). Jesus in his teachings never said anything about Church organisation or set up. The Church as an institution is not a requirement of the Christian faith. You dont have to go to church to be a Christian and if you do go to chuch, doesnt mean you are a Christian. I dont go to Church becasue I feel I have to, or because I feel under some kind of obligation. I go because I want to, and because I beleive that it will help me spiritually. I get a great deal from going to church that helps me in my walk through life. Thats what Church should be about. Not just a ritual, but a spirtual source of strength. If you dont find you get that from group worship then that is fine. All that matters is that you get your strength from God somehow. He suggests reading his word and prayer. Never is Church any forced implication. I would just like people to understand what Chruch is to Christians a little better here. Hopefully you can see past Non Christian, steryotypical views.


But most of the formal religion is setup for “moral guidance” and when the supposed moral guides of the faith mess-up really is it all that far out to think people would think bad about the religion?

Maybe some of us that have some issues with the organized part of the religion should differentiate between the organization issues and the faith in general


Also (and you may be the exception) do you honestly thing that the AVERAGE Christian knows enough about their faith to do without the guy up front telling them what to think? Because with my personal experience I would say no way. If they left the structure of the church there is no way they would have enough personal knowledge of both their holy book or their faith to continue to live by the teachings they have never read, only got force-fed by the organization.

The person who inextricably linked the Church with Christianity was Paul.

Of course, if we drop everything Paul wrote out of the Bible, we'll also be getting rid of most of the things that people find offensive about Christianity.

I'm all for buying a copy of the New Testament that has the words of Jesus highlighted in red, and ignoring all of the text that is not the direct words of Jesus.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the stuff written in the New Testament is invalid - Christians should only be concerned with what Jesus said, not with what Paul said.

I mean, who needs ANY of those letters Paul wrote.

The person who inextricably linked the Church with Christianity was Paul.

Of course, if we drop everything Paul wrote out of the Bible, we'll also be getting rid of most of the things that people find offensive about Christianity.

I'm all for buying a copy of the New Testament that has the words of Jesus highlighted in red, and ignoring all of the text that is not the direct words of Jesus.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the stuff written in the New Testament is invalid - Christians should only be concerned with what Jesus said, not with what Paul said.

I mean, who needs ANY of those letters Paul wrote.


Is it a sin to edit your holy book? Or pick and choose what you wish to follow (is that really much better logically then those that pick out quotes to support hate agenda’s?)

But most of the formal religion is setup for “moral guidance” and when the supposed moral guides of the faith mess-up really is it all that far out to think people would think bad about the religion?


When has the moral guidance of the Bible ever fouled up? People will often say to me that the Bible is asking for a lot from people, and in some respects it is. However if you look at the morals that the Bible talks about, nearly all of them are consistant with what most people would consider decent morals anyway.

Is it a sin to edit your holy book? Or pick and choose what you wish to follow (is that really much better logically then those that pick out quotes to support hate agenda’s?)

I would bet that most people pick and choose, regardless of their religion.

I find that pure Christianity (i.e., just what Jesus said and nothing that Paul said) is a far nicer religious viewpoint than leaving Paul in there.

For instance, we can eliminate the whole "homosexuals lose the kingdom" thing by eliminating Paul.

We can eliminate the whole "women can't be leaders" thing by eliminating Paul.

And, to a large extent, we can eliminate a pastoral authority by eliminating Paul (well, we won't have Ephesians to read anymore, that's for sure).

When has the moral guidance of the Bible ever fouled up? People will often say to me that the Bible is asking for a lot from people, and in some respects it is. However if you look at the morals that the Bible talks about, nearly all of them are consistant with what most people would consider decent morals anyway.
Sorry I was confusing ... was trying to imply that clergy (supposedly) = moral guides
And what happens when they take a viewpoint that does not jive with teachings of Christ

(as for similarity of morals I choose to see it that peoples influenced religious morals rather then the other way around …)

I would bet that most people pick and choose, regardless of their religion.

I find that pure Christianity (i.e., just what Jesus said and nothing that Paul said) is a far nicer religious viewpoint than leaving Paul in there.

For instance, we can eliminate the whole "homosexuals lose the kingdom" thing by eliminating Paul.

We can eliminate the whole "women can't be leaders" thing by eliminating Paul.

And, to a large extent, we can eliminate a pastoral authority by eliminating Paul (well, we won't have Ephesians to read anymore, that's for sure).
I agree but when you start picking and choosing from a supposed guide (bible) what jives with your POV really why bother using the book … you are choosing what you and others see rather then what is in there totally

(I don’t agree with Paul I just don’t logically see how you should/could edit him out)

The person who inextricably linked the Church with Christianity was Paul.

How did you reach this conclusion? It's not accurate.

How did you reach this conclusion? It's not accurate.
He is linked with creating the formal construct that is “church” (note church is not the same as religion)

But most of the formal religion is setup for “moral guidance” and when the supposed moral guides of the faith mess-up really is it all that far out to think people would think bad about the religion?

Maybe some of us that have some issues with the organized part of the religion should differentiate between the organization issues and the faith in general

People confuse religion with the faith or philisophical aspect all the time. It happens because organized religion is too rooted in traditions, as opposed to the philisophical message of the bible.

Also (and you may be the exception) do you honestly thing that the AVERAGE Christian knows enough about their faith to do without the guy up front telling them what to think? Because with my personal experience I would say no way. If they left the structure of the church there is no way they would have enough personal knowledge of both their holy book or their faith to continue to live by the teachings they have never read, only got force-fed by the organization.

Sadly, this is true. The average Christian knows very little about the teachings in the bible and lack any ability to defend their faith; which can make them look pretty silly to an unbeliever. However, they DO know the one thing that ACTUALLY matters: the reality of God.

I agree but when you start picking and choosing from a supposed guide (bible) what jives with your POV really why bother using the book … you are choosing what you and others see rather then what is in there totally

(I don’t agree with Paul I just don’t logically see how you should/could edit him out)

Well, as an example, for those who follow the Torah, when was the last time you saw someone stone their kids for talking back?

I feel that I could found a church based solely on Jesus, and not on Paul.

People confuse religion with the faith or philisophical aspect all the time. It happens because organized religion is too rooted in traditions, as opposed to the philisophical message of the bible.



Sadly, this is true. The average Christian knows very little about the teachings in the bible and lack any ability to defend their faith; which can make them look pretty silly to an unbeliever. However, they DO know the one thing that ACTUALLY matters: the reality of God.
Ohhh they got the reality … and all those other faiths don’t? or do you think they aren’t saying the same thing about you :P

Well, as an example, for those who follow the Torah, when was the last time you saw someone stone their kids for talking back?

I feel that I could found a church based solely on Jesus, and not on Paul.
Fair enough I suppose a whole separate denomination I can see. (and not saying that it is bad to pick and choose just cant follow the logic when the whole thing was supposed to be divinely inspired)