NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reflecting on my past, and I have come to a clear understanding about nearly every organized Christian Church. They are so far off base that it isn't even funny. They teach that you have to follow a specific set of rules to be considered 'christian'. They teach that you have to go to church or you aren't being a 'good' christian, and they use this to build themselves up.

They build laws of doctrine and philosophy around themselves like walls, and then anyone that isn't inside their walls isn't on the 'right' path, and if you aren't on the right path, then you are on the path of hell, and they use the other 'paths' as examples of how not to live. They use their laws of man as holy doctrine, and they give lipservice to the G-d they think they are honoring.

I see these preachers who preach out, and use so many words that make them sound intelligent, and they speak to hear themselves speak, and they make prayers that could be published as novels of their own. What good is that? Why pray so openly, and with so much 'colorful' words, who are they trying to impress? They are hypocrites.

They pray to the cross, to saints, and to Mary. Was Jesus wrong when he said that we should pray to the Father. I don't recall him saying that others will come that we must pray to, or that we were to pray to Mary. I do believe he said that Mary is great among women, but she is lower than every believer in heaven. So what makes us think that we should pray to her? Do you go to the lowest servent of a Noble to request a pardon? I think not.

To you Christians that follow only certain preachers and their ways of understanding the bible, I call you BOBians. You aren't following Jesus and his teachings, you are following "Bob's" teachings and his understandings of the divine. Well, I hope that "bob" is damn good, because you are replacing Bob for Jesus, and yet still saying your goal is to live like Christ.

Christians are free, free from the law of sin, free from the laws that bind us to death. Those that live by the law, live under a curse. We are free to do what ever we wish, and have faith that if we are truely following Jesus, then what we wish is his desire as well.

Beg pardon, but what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that Christianity is a bunch of junk (which I protest vehemently)? Or are you saying that a there are a lot of sects who just make things up to support themselves, although Christianity is still valid (which I agree with)?

Well, that was my 800th post, I wanted to do something other then just do another celebrate my 800th post comment like I was planning on doing. Instead I posted a bit of a rant, to vent a bit of steam I've had built up.

I tried talking to a new person I met that seemed a bit more open to the concepts of 'free' christians, but all he could tell me was, "You have to protect your witness, you have to act right to protect your witness and lead others"

Isn't it better to be honest and teach the honest message, rather then play kiss up and hope you don't offend someone because you don't fit their sterotype?

eh, I don't know, maybe I'm just being me again.

Beg pardon, but what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that Christianity is a bunch of junk (which I protest vehemently)? Or are you saying that a there are a lot of sects who just make things up to support themselves, although Christianity is still valid (which I agree with)?

He's saying the latter.

Beg pardon, but what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that Christianity is a bunch of junk (which I protest vehemently)? Or are you saying that a there are a lot of sects who just make things up to support themselves, although Christianity is still valid (which I agree with)?


I feel that Organized Churchs are the worst thing that Christianity could have gone with. It just promotes fighting amongst its 'branches' and furthers people away from the true messages in the bible. I support the teachings of the gospels, but when others come along and teach their interpretations of the gospels, and then people read those teachings, and don't really bother to read the bible for themselves, they aren't following the gospels, they are following man.

And so many modern churches toss out the Old Testament, but should we not keep that which Jesus was taught by?

your description sounds like a catholic church, not a christian (they're about the same i guess still...)

Lemme clear some things up: Jesus was a Liberal.

Sound strange? Of course it does, if you're an indoctrinated Christian. The man turned down nobody. He helped anybody who needed it. And, I think that if he was alive today, he'd puke at the sight of commercial churches.

your description sounds like a catholic church, not a christian (they're about the same i guess still...)

its not just the Catholic church that does it, though they are the most well known so their examples come the easiest.

I've been to churches where they forbid anything that has a beat thats too fast, because they say its a sin to listen to. I've been to churches that say any drinking at all is a sin. I've been to churches that promote the glorifactation of its members.

I went to a small little church that had 'prophets' that came in and gave very broad and generic 'visions' and then expected everyone to pay, because after all, what you give to the church will be your reward as well.

Or I flip through the tv stations and find these TV 'preachers' up there saying how they have found the light and how others can too, just follow them, and they are blowhards that need to read their bibles better.

I myself don't like the way today's churches relys on rituals and traditions, i think we should be more spontaneous and heartfelt. but there is something wrong with not having organized churches, but i can't ...put my finger on it..

Lemme clear some things up: Jesus was a Liberal.

Sound strange? Of course it does, if you're an indoctrinated Christian. The man turned down nobody. He helped anybody who needed it. And, I think that if he was alive today, he'd puke at the sight of commercial churches.

I think he would go into places where people are turning churches into money makers and chase them out with whips for destroying his father's name, and trying to turn a buck for other people's sins.

I myself don't like the way today's churches relys on rituals and traditions, i think we should be more spontaneous and heartfelt. but there is something wrong with not having organized churches, but i can't ...put my finger on it..


there should be fellowship withing believers, and there should be teachers, but not 'preachers' that stand on a stage to be heard. you should say the good news, but not dress better then others.

They promot legalism, They are there to worship not becaue they want to, but because its our obligation. A perversion of the bible and the torah.

I feel that Organized Churchs are the worst thing that Christianity could have gone with. It just promotes fighting amongst its 'branches' and furthers people away from the true messages in the bible. I support the teachings of the gospels, but when others come along and teach their interpretations of the gospels, and then people read those teachings, and don't really bother to read the bible for themselves, they aren't following the gospels, they are following man.

And so many modern churches toss out the Old Testament, but should we not keep that which Jesus was taught by?

Can't say I agree with you. Though the original purpose of any kind of church was simply to spread the Word out to the scattered Christians of the world. To try and organize the religion a little better. To, in a sense, give Christians a place of worship that has order.

I believe in 1st or 2nd Corninthians it stated that Orderly Worship is needed. As to your statement about preachers giving long prayers, I believe one the one of the Gospels, Jesus spoke on that saying that if someone is saying long and detailed prayers it doesn't automatically equal spiritual, since the religious order during His time did something similar to that.

I think he would go into places where people are turning churches into money makers and chase them out with whips for destroying his father's name, and trying to turn a buck for other people's sins.

I doubt he'd use corporal punishment. But yeah, he'd definately chase the bastards out.

I'm actually an Atheist, but I do not deny the fact that the man existed (he's in Roman Court records, among other things).

About being a "good" christian,

the Bible says, we are saved thru grace and not by our own works.
Does that mean a saved person can be a total slob and jerk but still go to heaven?

im guessing no tho...he would slowly stray away from his faith, but i still a bit confused on this matter.

I

Can't say I agree with you. Though the original purpose of any kind of church was simply to spread the Word out to the scattered Christians of the world. To try and organize the religion a little better. To, in a sense, give Christians a place of worship that has order.

I believe in 1st or 2nd Corninthians it stated that Orderly Worship is needed. As to your statement about preachers giving long prayers, I believe one the one of the Gospels, Jesus spoke on that saying that if someone is saying long and detailed prayers it doesn't automatically equal spiritual, since the religious order during His time did something similar to that.

when asked how we should pray, Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer. He told us not to pray where we can be seen by others, because that is the only reward we will get from prayers to be seen. But we were to go into secret and pray, just as we were to fast in secret, and so that we would not be filled with pride. Jesus warned that people would honor him with their lips, but they would not be worshipping with the heart because they would hold man's laws as holy doctrine. A statement even found in Isaiah.

we are told in the bible that christains are free from the laws, and that to live by them we are doomed to a curse, yet so many churches preach that you must follow the laws of moses or you will never enter Heaven. Where does the bible say that? I've yet to find it.

I doubt he'd use corporal punishment. But yeah, he'd definately chase the bastards out.

I'm actually an Atheist, but I do not deny the fact that the man existed (he's in Roman Court records, among other things).

when Jesus found moneychangers and people selling sacrifices to people, he made a whip and chased them out with the same Zeal that King David held. Modern churches may make Jesus out as a total pacifist, but there were things that where not to be allowed.

About being a "good" christian,

the Bible says, we are saved thru grace and not by our own works.
Does that mean a saved person can be a total slob and jerk but still go to heaven?

im guessing no tho...he would slowly stray away from his faith, but i still a bit confused on this matter.

if we truely believe and have faith in Christ, then we would find such things to be distastful, but if we didn't know better, then its hard to really be doing wrong. Sin isn't doing things that we aren't supposed to do, its willingly doing things we know we aren't supposed to do. We aren't held by the laws of sin, so the message we are left is this, We are punished according to what we know.

we are told in the bible that christains are free from the laws, and that to live by them we are doomed to a curse, yet so many churches preach that you must follow the laws of moses or you will never enter Heaven. Where does the bible say that? I've yet to find it.

does it matter? as long as we are saved by Jesus Christ. we can forget about every "church law" but continue to live like Christ, there shouldn't be a problem/

I

Can't say I agree with you. Though the original purpose of any kind of church was simply to spread the Word out to the scattered Christians of the world. To try and organize the religion a little better. To, in a sense, give Christians a place of worship that has order.

I believe in 1st or 2nd Corninthians it stated that Orderly Worship is needed. As to your statement about preachers giving long prayers, I believe one the one of the Gospels, Jesus spoke on that saying that if someone is saying long and detailed prayers it doesn't automatically equal spiritual, since the religious order during His time did something similar to that.

!st Coriinthians says not to let yourself be split into factions but to have a common mind and a common purpose.

It says not to say, I follow the teachings of Saul/Paul. Because it wasn't Paul/Saul that died on the cross to save you, but it was instead the Messiah.

if we truely believe and have faith in Christ, then we would find such things to be distastful, but if we didn't know better, then its hard to really be doing wrong. Sin isn't doing things that we aren't supposed to do, its willingly doing things we know we aren't supposed to do. We aren't held by the laws of sin, so the message we are left is this, We are punished according to what we know.

Not quite. As the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Sin is defined (in the original Greek and Hebrew) as unintentional screw-ups, some of which we know we shouldn't have done, some of which we don't. Intentionally doing wrong is known as a transgression.

when asked how we should pray, Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer. He told us not to pray where we can be seen by others, because that is the only reward we will get from prayers to be seen. But we were to go into secret and pray, just as we were to fast in secret, and so that we would not be filled with pride. Jesus warned that people would honor him with their lips, but they would not be worshipping with the heart because they would hold man's laws as holy doctrine. A statement even found in Isaiah.

we are told in the bible that christains are free from the laws, and that to live by them we are doomed to a curse, yet so many churches preach that you must follow the laws of moses or you will never enter Heaven. Where does the bible say that? I've yet to find it.

I agree and apologize for leaving that part out. Though I would like to remind you that it isn't a sin to pray in public, so long as you don't turn it into a show (example being, shouting it out) as the pride you receive from it and the public display you have will be your only reward.

Also to kind of continue on my post (I ended prematurely by mistake). Organized worship is nessecary, if we all just kind of did our own thing image how many, and I say this lightly, false verisons of Christianity there would be. There would be as many denominations as there are Christians. I also stress that unorganized worship would permit a lot more "False Christs" to appear from time to time and proclaim to be Jesus and lead armed revolts, lead a cult, or simply is power hungry and believes the best way is to claim to be Christ. Organized worship is required to ensure such events do not occur like a plauge. Yes, in todays world things like that do happen, but not nearly as much as if Christianity was in anarchy.

does it matter? as long as we are saved by Jesus Christ. we can forget about every "church law" but continue to live like Christ, there shouldn't be a problem/

as long as you live my Christ and the Spirt, then there is no problem. But one should never follow blindly the teachings of others. Never become lukewarm in your faith, for as Christ said, he will spit you out.

doctrine teaches man's laws, when instead we should teach the divine laws, the two commandments of Christ guide us, and through those commandments we will find all things that he wishes us to see.

Not quite. As the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Sin is defined (in the original Greek and Hebrew) as unintentional screw-ups, some of which we know we shouldn't have done, some of which we don't. Intentionally doing wrong is known as a transgression.

the definition of sin can be open to debate, I acknowledge that. The part about being punished according to our knowledge, that part is from the bible, nearly word for word.

the definition of sin can be open to debate, I acknowledge that. The part about being punished according to our knowledge, that part is from the bible, nearly word for word.

Got a reference handy? That seems pretty counter to a lot of stuff taught straight from the Bible. For example, there are people who haven't heard the Gospel yet. Does that mean that they are exempted from needing Christ for salvation? If that is the case, then why did Jesus say to go unto all the world preaching the Gospel?

I agree and apologize for leaving that part out. Though I would like to remind you that it isn't a sin to pray in public, so long as you don't turn it into a show (example being, shouting it out) as the pride you receive from it and the public display you have will be your only reward.

Also to kind of continue on my post (I ended prematurely by mistake). Organized worship is nessecary, if we all just kind of did our own thing image how many, and I say this lightly, false verisons of Christianity there would be. There would be as many denominations as there are Christians. I also stress that unorganized worship would permit a lot more "False Christs" to appear from time to time and proclaim to be Jesus and lead armed revolts, lead a cult, or simply is power hungry and believes the best way is to claim to be Christ. Organized worship is required to ensure such events do not occur like a plauge. Yes, in todays world things like that do happen, but not nearly as much as if Christianity was in anarchy.

Christ teaches us that "anti-christs" can and will come to challenge, but with faith and scripture we will be able to know they are false. The bible talks that a temptation to one person may not be a temptation to another, and that we should make sure we do not cause others to be tempted. If one person sees it as a temptation of sin to eat pork, don't eat pork around him, for example. This shows that we are meant to have our own rules, and not to just be lead. We are not to call others, Teacher, for we have on teacher, and he is the Father.

there are many dangers to be found in living by faith and spirit, but that doesn't mean that we should follow the mistakes of the past. G-d wanted us to be ruled by ourselves, and only under protest and anger did he even appoint kings, and when he appointed kings and law he said that we would have to live with the punishments that came from such things. Written upon the hearts of all is the Spirit of G-d, that guide that we each need. We need no rely upon man, for man can and will fail, but the Spirit will never fail.

Lemme clear some things up: Jesus was a Liberal.
Wrong. He fulfilled the old law. He fought against people preaching heretical, liberal messages. He was not a liberal.

I was reflecting on my past, and I have come to a clear understanding about nearly every organized Christian Church. They are so far off base that it isn't even funny. They teach that you have to follow a specific set of rules to be considered 'christian'. They teach that you have to go to church or you aren't being a 'good' christian, and they use this to build themselves up.

They build laws of doctrine and philosophy around themselves like walls, and then anyone that isn't inside their walls isn't on the 'right' path, and if you aren't on the right path, then you are on the path of hell, and they use the other 'paths' as examples of how not to live. They use their laws of man as holy doctrine, and they give lipservice to the G-d they think they are honoring.

I see these preachers who preach out, and use so many words that make them sound intelligent, and they speak to hear themselves speak, and they make prayers that could be published as novels of their own. What good is that? Why pray so openly, and with so much 'colorful' words, who are they trying to impress? They are hypocrites.

They pray to the cross, to saints, and to Mary. Was Jesus wrong when he said that we should pray to the Father. I don't recall him saying that others will come that we must pray to, or that we were to pray to Mary. I do believe he said that Mary is great among women, but she is lower than every believer in heaven. So what makes us think that we should pray to her? Do you go to the lowest servent of a Noble to request a pardon? I think not.

To you Christians that follow only certain preachers and their ways of understanding the bible, I call you BOBians. You aren't following Jesus and his teachings, you are following "Bob's" teachings and his understandings of the divine. Well, I hope that "bob" is damn good, because you are replacing Bob for Jesus, and yet still saying your goal is to live like Christ.

Christians are free, free from the law of sin, free from the laws that bind us to death. Those that live by the law, live under a curse. We are free to do what ever we wish, and have faith that if we are truely following Jesus, then what we wish is his desire as well.

You know nothing about true Christianity. Rant all you want, but it would be better directed at the godless hindoo or the satanic moosleman.

You know nothing about true Christianity. Rant all you want, but it would be better directed at the godless hindoo or the satanic moosleman.

Oh, great. Here we go again.

Dude, buzz off. You'll give the rest of us a bad name, and you won't make any headway in this sort of group anyway.

You know nothing about true Christianity. Rant all you want, but it would be better directed at the godless hindoo or the satanic moosleman.
Hmm.
Less than 50 posts? Check
Blatant flamebait? Check
Shoots his own cause in the foot? Check
What we have here is a troll...

Oh, great. Here we go again.

Dude, buzz off. You'll give the rest of us a bad name, and you won't make any headway in this sort of group anyway.

Should I not point out that the first post is entirely fabricated and without merit?

In other words, you are fine with the true Christian Church being maligned, but any other godless religion is the problem! If you knew anything at all about Christianity, you would not repsond this way.

Got a reference handy? That seems pretty counter to a lot of stuff taught straight from the Bible. For example, there are people who haven't heard the Gospel yet. Does that mean that they are exempted from needing Christ for salvation? If that is the case, then why did Jesus say to go unto all the world preaching the Gospel?

Luke 12:48

"But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

"However, the one who did what deserves a beating, but didn't know, will receive few lashes. From him who has been given much, much will be demanded, from someone to whom people entrust much, the ask still more."

Hmm.
Less than 50 posts? Check
Blatant flamebait? Check
Shoots his own cause in the foot? Check
What we have here is a troll...

Yes, slander me all you want! That does not change the fact that the first post is utter flamatory lies. Does that not also qualify as 'flamebait'?

Should I not point out that the first post is entirely fabricated and without merit?

In other words, you are fine with the true Christian Church being maligned, but any other godless religion is the problem! If you knew anything at all about Christianity, you would not repsond this way.

if it is without merit, them show me how it is as such. Jesus didn't rebuke the devil with empty words, but instead set about to show the Devil that the scripture said otherwise. If you are offended by my statement, I am sorry to cause offense, but I am not sorry for saying it.

Should I not point out that the first post is entirely fabricated and without merit?

In other words, you are fine with the true Christian Church being maligned, but any other godless religion is the problem! If you knew anything at all about Christianity, you would not repsond this way.

I am saying that I find it perfectly acceptable to point out problems in the way that Christianity is carried out. I also think that doing a bunch of name-calling of other religions won't win any converts.

Yes, slander me all you want! That does not change the fact that the first post is utter flamatory lies. Does that not also qualify as 'flamebait'?
The first post is utter flamatory lies, yes. However, responding to it the way you did hurts your cause more than helps it, and annoys people in the process.

Wrong. He fulfilled the old law. He fought against people preaching heretical, liberal messages. He was not a liberal.
Well, he advocated changing all of tradition and law, so he could hardly be called a conservative.
And he is rather anti-capitalist, as evidenced by the bit with the money changers
And he is likely against the death penalty, as it was wrongfully applied to him.
He forgave theives and prostitutes and adulterers. He advocated forgiveness.
In fact, his quote "Give unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser, and give unto God what is God's" could be seen as an early call for a seperation of church and state!

I am saying that I find it perfectly acceptable to point out problems in the way that Christianity is carried out. I also think that doing a bunch of name-calling of other religions won't win any converts.

No you are not. The original post was rubbish, and a complete mischarcterization of Christianity. And no true Christian would seek converts; that is blasphemous.

The first post is utter flamatory lies, yes. However, responding to it the way you did hurts your cause more than helps it, and annoys people in the process.

I don't see how it is lies, show me, if I am wrong, I will gladly accept the error of my ways, and seek after the truth. Fellowship of believers is where you share, and if another is wrong, show him his error, but do not judge.

Well, he advocated changing all of tradition and law, so he could hardly be called a conservative.
And he is rather anti-capitalist, as evidenced by the bit with the money changers
And he is likely against the death penalty, as it was wrongfully applied to him.
He forgave theives and prostitutes and adulterers. He advocated forgiveness.
In fact, his quote "Give unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser, and give unto God what is God's" could be seen as an early call for a seperation of church and state!
He didn't. He specifically said He came to fulfill the law, not to change it.

He threw out the money changes because of where they were based, not because of what they were.

If He supports the old law He clearly supports the death penalty, which isn't exactly a liberal/conservative issue anyway.

Forgiveness isn't a conservative or a liberal trait exclusively.

Could be, but could also not be. It isn't concrete either way.

The first post is utter flamatory lies, yes. However, responding to it the way you did hurts your cause more than helps it, and annoys people in the process.

I have no 'cause'.

I do not care whether people are annoyed or not. No-one else pointed out the defects in the first post, so it was incumbent upon me.

Luke 12:48

"But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

"However, the one who did what deserves a beating, but didn't know, will receive few lashes. From him who has been given much, much will be demanded, from someone to whom people entrust much, the ask still more."

That's a little out of context. Jesus is talking about how people given a charge are held to a higher standard than those who are not. Paul says basically the same thing in 1st Timothy when he is talking about teachers being held accountable.

Jesus is talking about His servants. This is not applicable to salvation or morality. It's about keeping to our calling. A person who doesn't have one and does nothing will be punished much less than those who have one and still do nothing.

I have no 'cause'.

I do not care whether people are annoyed or not. No-one else pointed out the defects in the first post, so it was incumbent upon me.

you didn't point out any flaws, you just made a statement with nothing to show the merits of your words.

I would welcome your challenge of my statement, and would gladly welcome it.

I don't see how it is lies, show me, if I am wrong, I will gladly accept the error of my ways, and seek after the truth. Fellowship of believers is where you share, and if another is wrong, show him his error, but do not judge.
First, the worship of Mary and saints is almost exclusively a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing per se. And all Christian denominations have saints, anyone who is in Heaven is a saint. You also mention that it's wrong to assume going to church makes you a good Christian, I ask how else you expect to fellowship with believers? We are not free of the law, but we are not bound by it. Your rewards in Heaven are determined by your deeds, but your ticket there is determined by faith. Just a few things I noticed.

That's a little out of context. Jesus is talking about how people given a charge are held to a higher standard than those who are not. Paul says basically the same thing in 1st Timothy when he is talking about teachers being held accountable.

Jesus is talking about His servants. This is not applicable to salvation or morality. It's about keeping to our calling. A person who doesn't have one and does nothing will be punished much less than those who have one and still do nothing.

all followers of Christ are his servants. You are right, it has nothing to do with our salvation or morality. Its a statement that just because you never knew better doesn't mean you are going to be tossed in with all the others that did know better. As we walk down our path in faith we will understand and know more things, and as we do, more is expected of us, and we will be held accountable for more things.

I don't see how it is lies, show me, if I am wrong, I will gladly accept the error of my ways, and seek after the truth. Fellowship of believers is where you share, and if another is wrong, show him his error, but do not judge.

You blatantly mistated the nature of Christianty.

No you are not. The original post was rubbish, and a complete mischarcterization of Christianity. And no true Christian would seek converts; that is blasphemous.

The first post was fine. A bit disjointed and easy to misconstrew, but that that's why I asked for clarification. The original poster has issues with certain branches of Christianity who tack on their own teachings. He is correct that this is an issue.

As for not seeking converts, I see you're not too keen on following the Great Commission. Either way, can it.

all followers of Christ are his servants. You are right, it has nothing to do with our salvation or morality. Its a statement that just because you never knew better doesn't mean you are going to be tossed in with all the others that did know better. As we walk down our path in faith we will understand and know more things, and as we do, more is expected of us, and we will be held accountable for more things.

Okay, I can agree with that. I wasn't sure what you ment when you made the first post. Thanks for the clarification.

First, the worship of Mary and saints is almost exclusively a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing per se. And all Christian denominations have saints, anyone who is in Heaven is a saint. You also mention that it's wrong to assume going to church makes you a good Christian, I ask how else you expect to fellowship with believers? We are not free of the law, but we are not bound by it. Your rewards in Heaven are determined by your deeds, but your ticket there is determined by faith. Just a few things I noticed.

Yes, the worship of Mary and the saints is nearly kept to the Catholic church, and yes all Christians have saints, the first meaning of Saint was a believer of Christ or one that walks with G-d.

I stated that going to church has nothing to do with being a good christian. There are those that go to church and are good christians, but there are those that go that aren't. There are those that don't go that are good, but there are those that don't go that are not.

We are free to do what we wish, but that doesn't mean that we should. The Laws are our guides, but not our judgement. Our faith alone is how a person finds the Divine. Our rewards in the New Heaven are dependent upon our deeds, but it also states that our rewards are meant to be placed before G-d to honor him, and that all good deeds are nothing more then dirty rags to him, so its still a pretty mute point about good deeds.

I can fellowship with belivers in so many ways, even on this message board. Christ preached to those that needed to hear, not to those that already knew. You don't bandage the healthy, or bathe the clean. Fellowship doesn't have to be in a building. We have fellowship with friends, family, and loved ones, and we have fellowship with Jesus and the Spirit.

You blatantly mistated the nature of Christianty.

I must agree with others that if you aren't willing to back up your statements you really shouldn't keep making them. I'm not here to cause a fight, I'm here to challenge, as the bible has taught me to do. I could go down to a local church and make my standpoint, but that would be kinda hypocritacal of myself to do so. I would rather make it here, where both believer and non can read it and respond. Out in the world, not hidden away where none will ever see it.

I was reflecting on my past, and I have come to a clear understanding about nearly every organized Christian Church. They are so far off base that it isn't even funny. They teach that you have to follow a specific set of rules to be considered 'christian'. They teach that you have to go to church or you aren't being a 'good' christian, and they use this to build themselves up.

This is wrong. There are no rules. The only requirement is that holy communion is recieved twice a year: Once at Easter, and at one other date. Naturally the prayer of penitence must be completed first but that is part of the order of service. (You also cannot marry your sister in law, in the event your wife dies).

They build laws of doctrine and philosophy around themselves like walls, and then anyone that isn't inside their walls isn't on the 'right' path, and if you aren't on the right path, then you are on the path of hell, and they use the other 'paths' as examples of how not to live. They use their laws of man as holy doctrine, and they give lipservice to the G-d they think they are honoring.

Again, this is incorrect. There is no exclusive path to God, and so the Church teaches. Indeed, everyone must find their own way to the numinous, and the true Church welcomes even those who are not of the Christian faith to partake of the fellowship.

I see these preachers who preach out, and use so many words that make them sound intelligent, and they speak to hear themselves speak, and they make prayers that could be published as novels of their own. What good is that? Why pray so openly, and with so much 'colorful' words, who are they trying to impress? They are hypocrites.

These 'preachers' are apostate. There is an established order of service, which can be altered through options, but cannot be deviated from. The only opportunity to preach is the Holy Sermon, which should be an explination of the chosen scripture of the day.

They pray to the cross, to saints, and to Mary. Was Jesus wrong when he said that we should pray to the Father. I don't recall him saying that others will come that we must pray to, or that we were to pray to Mary. I do believe he said that Mary is great among women, but she is lower than every believer in heaven. So what makes us think that we should pray to her? Do you go to the lowest servent of a Noble to request a pardon? I think not.


Praying to Mary or the Saints is techically incorrect. However if it helps you in your faith you are free to do so. There are no specific rules.

I should also mention the whole notion of 'hell' is entirely discredited.





To you Christians that follow only certain preachers and their ways of understanding the bible, I call you BOBians. You aren't following Jesus and his teachings, you are following "Bob's" teachings and his understandings of the divine. Well, I hope that "bob" is damn good, because you are replacing Bob for Jesus, and yet still saying your goal is to live like Christ.

Christians are free, free from the law of sin, free from the laws that bind us to death. Those that live by the law, live under a curse. We are free to do what ever we wish, and have faith that if we are truely following Jesus, then what we wish is his desire as well.

I have no idea who this 'bob' individual is. But yes, Christians are free from original sin. (That also was discredited).

-snip-

He was saying that those things are wrong. Read the whole thread. We cleared that up in the first half-page.

And what tradition do you follow? I've never heard of any of those things that you mentioned, either in the Bible or from any movement.

Yes, the worship of Mary and the saints is nearly kept to the Catholic church, and yes all Christians have saints, the first meaning of Saint was a believer of Christ or one that walks with G-d.

I stated that going to church has nothing to do with being a good christian. There are those that go to church and are good christians, but there are those that go that aren't. There are those that don't go that are good, but there are those that don't go that are not.

We are free to do what we wish, but that doesn't mean that we should. The Laws are our guides, but not our judgement. Our faith alone is how a person finds the Divine. Our rewards in the New Heaven are dependent upon our deeds, but it also states that our rewards are meant to be placed before G-d to honor him, and that all good deeds are nothing more then dirty rags to him, so its still a pretty mute point about good deeds.

I can fellowship with belivers in so many ways, even on this message board. Christ preached to those that needed to hear, not to those that already knew. You don't bandage the healthy, or bathe the clean. Fellowship doesn't have to be in a building. We have fellowship with friends, family, and loved ones, and we have fellowship with Jesus and the Spirit.



Ok, for the one millionth time, Catholics do no (are not supposed to, anyway) worship Mary or the saints. For someone who claims to know so much about organized religion, you sure do negatively misconstrue and misunderstand their practices quite a bit.

On a more general note, I think that your heart is in the right place. However, I think that you need to reevaluate some of your ideas. It seems to me that you walked into some churchs with preconceived biases and only gained a topical understanding of what they are all about. Perhaps you should give organized church another chance. Go a little deeper, maybe try talking to a priest or minister, leave your bias at the door.

I apologise that this post lacks specific arguements and is over generalised and may seem condescending. It's just that I don't think I could change your mind in the few minutes I have here to post.

This is wrong. There are no rules. The only requirement is that holy communion is recieved twice a year: Once at Easter, and at one other date. Naturally the prayer of penitence must be completed first but that is part of the order of service. (You also cannot marry your sister in law, in the event your wife dies).

I do believe that Easter isn't even mentioned in the bible...I could be wrong, but Jesus wasn't really around on that day to say, Hey do your communion. The only prayer that Chirst gave us was the Lord's Prayer. No requirement to take the communion and remember the death and life of chirst.

Again, this is incorrect. There is no exclusive path to God, and so the Church teaches. Indeed, everyone must find their own way to the numinous, and the true Church welcomes even those who are not of the Christian faith to partake of the fellowship.

I don't think I said there was only one way, what I did say was that teaching man's laws as holy doctrine is wrong, from the mouth of Christ and the prophet Isaiah. Were they wrong to say such things?

These 'preachers' are apostate. There is an established order of service, which can be altered through options, but cannot be deviated from. The only opportunity to preach is the Holy Sermon, which should be an explination of the chosen scripture of the day.

there is nothing wrong with preaching, but to preach only to be heard, glorified or make money is very wrong. Anyone should be allowed to preach out, for the Holy Spirit is our ordaintion to preach. College and long hard study isn't needed, I don't think there was a single 'educated' man among the 12.




Praying to Mary or the Saints is techically incorrect. However if it helps you in your faith you are free to do so. There are no specific rules.

I should also mention the whole notion of 'hell' is entirely discredited.

Jesus said that Mary is no better least amongst the believers in heaven. You are to pray to G-d, as was taught in the Lord's prayer. He didn't say, pray like this, but feel free to switch the target around if it helps you out. I do believe there is something to be remembered that G-d is a jealous god, and not to pray to anything else, or graven images. 'hell' is totally misused, its used as a scare tactic, and Shoel may not be a nice place, many of G-d's people went there. The burning lake, and bottomless pit, they aren't even in the picture yet, not till the end of times and after the day of judgement. If you die in sin, you go to the Land of the Dead, so much is lost when the Old Testament is removed from churches.





I have no idea who this 'bob' individual is. But yes, Christians are free from original sin. (That also was discredited).
who discreated it?

Ok, for the one millionth time, Catholics do no (are not supposed to, anyway) worship Mary or the saints. For someone who claims to know so much about organized religion, you sure do negatively misconstrue and misunderstand their practices quite a bit.

On a more general note, I think that your heart is in the right place. However, I think that you need to reevaluate some of your ideas. It seems to me that you walked into some churchs with preconceived biases and only gained a topical understanding of what they are all about. Perhaps you should give organized church another chance. Go a little deeper, maybe try talking to a priest or minister, leave your bias at the door.

I apologise that this post lacks specific arguements and is over generalised and may seem condescending. It's just that I don't think I could change your mind in the few minutes I have here to post.
I am saying there are catholics out there that do worship Mary. I take pray to anything other then to G-d is an act of worship, because you are asking them to act for you. We are told that Mary holds nothing special. In the old testament, many times they talk about how the Hebrews would pray to other things, and G-d would grow angry at them for it. We are ordered not to make any graven images, because G-d didn't come to us in a form other then fire. We are told not to make any image, be it in heaven or earth, in the stars or in the seas or on the land.

I've been to many churches, and I've always kept an open mind about it. I've been present to hear people preach that other denominations are following the wrong course, and then hold a prayer session to help them find the light again. I've been in a baptist chruch, and been told that I'm a sinner because my music's beat is too fast, even though its christian music. I've been to Catholic churches, and been told that because I wasn't baptised by them, then I wasn't to take communion until I was.

I am always open to churches, I go to many of them in my times of doubt to get their viewpoints on things, to better understand myself and the world around me. They are still my brothers and they can still offer me fellowship, but that doesn't mean they or I have the perfect walk.

I do believe that Easter isn't even mentioned in the bible...I could be wrong, but Jesus wasn't really around on that day to say, Hey do your communion. The only prayer that Chirst gave us was the Lord's Prayer. No requirement to take the communion and remember the death and life of chirst.



I don't think I said there was only one way, what I did say was that teaching man's laws as holy doctrine is wrong, from the mouth of Christ and the prophet Isaiah. Were they wrong to say such things?



there is nothing wrong with preaching, but to preach only to be heard, glorified or make money is very wrong. Anyone should be allowed to preach out, for the Holy Spirit is our ordaintion to preach. College and long hard study isn't needed, I don't think there was a single 'educated' man among the 12.






Jesus said that Mary is no better least amongst the believers in heaven. You are to pray to G-d, as was taught in the Lord's prayer. He didn't say, pray like this, but feel free to switch the target around if it helps you out. I do believe there is something to be remembered that G-d is a jealous god, and not to pray to anything else, or graven images. 'hell' is totally misused, its used as a scare tactic, and Shoel may not be a nice place, many of G-d's people went there. The burning lake, and bottomless pit, they aren't even in the picture yet, not till the end of times and after the day of judgement. If you die in sin, you go to the Land of the Dead, so much is lost when the Old Testament is removed from churches.

So you malign Christianity, yet when an actual practicing Christian tells you something of how the faith works you choose to rebuke them? Actual Chistians do not slavishly devote themselves to the scripture, and indeed, many of the Bishops of the Established Church have condemned much of the bible as evil. Do read up on these things before you start condemning Christians please.


who discreated it?

The high prelate of the Estabilshed Catholic Church. (Sometime in the 1980s I believe).

Under the doctorine of Apostolic Succession, this is an infalible ruling.

And what tradition do you follow? I've never heard of any of those things that you mentioned, either in the Bible or from any movement.

The Established Catholic Church.

Hey, guys, who was that guy that was claiming that Pope John Paul II was apostate? Didn't he get deleted? I think he's back.

So you malign Christianity, yet when an actual practicing Christian tells you something of how the faith works you choose to rebuke them? Actual Chistians do not slavishly devote themselves to the scripture, and indeed, many of the Bishops of the Established Church have condemned much of the bible as evil. Do read up on these things before you start condemning Christians please.

to be completely honest, all I need to know my savior is him and his Spirit. I don't think I've condemned anyone, and for your information, you are the one condeming me, yet I am a christian.



The high prelate of the Estabilshed Catholic Church. (Sometime in the 1980s I believe).

Under the doctorine of Apostolic Succession, this is an infalible ruling.

I don't think I've ever read in the bible that anyone has the power to rule things unbiblical or wrong, other then Christ, as he was annointed to do so by G-d. And nothing man does is infalible. The Catholic church has done a lot of good in the world, but that doesn't mean they are the holy and divine church of Christ. Just because there is the claim of the correct order means nothing, as even Paul said.

Man is free from the sin of Adam, in so much as we are no longer bound to death for the sins of our fathers.

Hey, guys, who was that guy that was claiming that Pope John Paul II was apostate? Didn't he get deleted? I think he's back.

Karol Jozef Wojtyla is clearly a very holy man and holds true to his faith. No-one can deny his holiness; moreover nobody could think of him as apostate per se! He is not however the head of the Established Catholic Church.

Karol Jozef Wojtyla is clearly a very holy man and holds true to his faith. No-one can deny his holiness; moreover nobody could think of him as apostate per se! He is not however the head of the Established Catholic Church.

So I take it that the "Established Catholic Church" is not the Roman Catholic church?

Either way, I have issues with any movement that places church tradition and doctrine above Scripture. When it does that, I don't see how it would be any different from any of the other manmade religions out there.

Karol Jozef Wojtyla is clearly a very holy man and holds true to his faith. No-one can deny his holiness; moreover nobody could think of him as apostate per se! He is not however the head of the Established Catholic Church.

all annointed of Christ are Holy. And no man, other then Christ is the head of the Church. The church meaning the body of believers, not just the catholic and such.

I have come to like the current Pope, but I dont' always agree with his standpoints, I feel he has done great good. I wouldn't call him holier than anyone else, and if I were ever to meet him, I would not call him Pope or any other title, because belivers are not supposed to claim and hold titles amongst themselves, for that can lead to pride.

So I take it that the "Established Catholic Church" is not the Roman Catholic church?

Either way, I have issues with any movement that places church tradition and doctrine above Scripture. When it does that, I don't see how it would be any different from any of the other manmade religions out there.

'these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me. Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules af if they were doctrines'

even Jesus didn't like it when man put their own ways first. I see the Catholic church doing that too often. Not all Catholics are worthless worshippers, but I fear that more then should be allowed are. They have come a long way, but I fear that they have lost much of their guidence. I don't think I've heard much of the Spirit talking in their halls.

'these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me. Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules af if they were doctrines'

even Jesus didn't like it when man put their own ways first. I see the Catholic church doing that too often. Not all Catholics are worthless worshippers, but I fear that more then should be allowed are. They have come a long way, but I fear that they have lost much of their guidence. I don't think I've heard much of the Spirit talking in their halls.

I would have to agree.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author's initial post - anyone who disagrees should look at Paul's letter to the Galatians.

I only have real experience with 2 kinds of church, Church of England, and english Evangelical churches. In the evangelical church, they tend to be quite pentecostal and no laws are stated. They believe that you should be evangelistic (duh), and various other things, but they're not laws, only personal (or in this case group) interprettations of the bible, and in many churches they don't insist that even their own members have to follow it, let alone that you have to do so to be 'christian', for which grace is the only requirement. It is impossible for anyone to keep the law, and any person who looks down on someone else for failing, or for misinterpretting it, is missing one of the most important messages of Christ and the Apostles.

On the other side of the spectrum is the Anglican chruch, which perhaps astonishingly is more liberal. The service follows a definite order, there are a massive number of hymnals and prayer books, creeds and liturgies, but they are only guides. It's true that the order of service is highly restrictive, but this reflects the fact that it's an anglish protestant church, run by the aristocracy for the middle classes, and not a pentecostal one. It does not reflect any rules or regulations about sanctification. I've come accross some, but in my experience there are very few anglicans who would look down on another christian from a religious perspective (I think quite a few look down on evangelicals for being a bit 'too american'), and I have a hard time believing that the church itself would claim that any law is necessary for salvation, even though it has a very large amount of doctrine itself.

to be completely honest, all I need to know my savior is him and his Spirit. I don't think I've condemned anyone, and for your information, you are the one condeming me, yet I am a christian.

I do not condemn you at all. I do, perhaps, condemn some of your statements. You clearly feel that you are the holder of some exclusive truth, yet shout that other Christians are 'wrong'. If it comforts them in their faith, what does it cost you? You mischaracterize the nature of the ture Catholic Church.


I don't think I've ever read in the bible that anyone has the power to rule things unbiblical or wrong, other then Christ, as he was annointed to do so by G-d. And nothing man does is infalible. The Catholic church has done a lot of good in the world, but that doesn't mean they are the holy and divine church of Christ. Just because there is the claim of the correct order means nothing, as even Paul said.

Man is free from the sin of Adam, in so much as we are no longer bound to death for the sins of our fathers.

Read Timothy. The Episcopacy has the guardianship of the Faith. As such they are empowered to adjust doctorine as new revelations occur. Much of the scripture is suspect, and should be treated as such.

It's true that the order of service is highly restrictive, but this reflects the fact that it's an anglish protestant church, run by the aristocracy for the middle classes, and not a pentecostal one.

It is not protestant. Nor is it run by the aristocracy for the middle classes. Stop making things up.

It is not protestant. Nor is it run by the aristocracy for the middle classes. Stop making things up.

I'm sorry, I'm actually a CoE churchgoer in the english middle class... these are only my own observations. Many of the Bishops in fact are members of the house of lords, either before or after becoming one, and it is technically run by the queen, which is definitely aristocracy. I may have been wrong to say it was run for the middle classes though - my apologies.

Read Timothy. The Episcopacy has the guardianship of the Faith. As such they are empowered to adjust doctorine as new revelations occur. Much of the scripture is suspect, and should be treated as such.

Beg pardon, but if you can call some parts of Scripture suspect, what keeps you from calling all of it suspect? Why isn't Timothy suspect in that passage? What about the verse in 2nd Timothy that states that all Scripture is God-breathed? What makes you different from any other group out there that sets up it's own traditions and appeals to God to uphold them?

Beg pardon, but if you can call some parts of Scripture suspect, what keeps you from calling all of it suspect? Why isn't Timothy suspect in that passage? What about the verse in 2nd Timothy that states that all Scripture is God-breathed? What makes you different from any other group out there that sets up it's own traditions and appeals to God to uphold them?

Because the Episocpacy says so. :rolleyes:

Because the Episocpacy says so. :rolleyes:

I see a circular argument brewing.....

I'm sorry, I'm actually a CoE churchgoer in the english middle class... these are only my own observations. Many of the Bishops in fact are members of the house of lords, either before or after becoming one, and it is technically run by the queen, which is definitely aristocracy. I may have been wrong to say it was run for the middle classes though - my apologies.

No you're not (Church goer that is). Otherwise you would know that is is not a protestant Church.

all annointed of Christ are Holy. And no man, other then Christ is the head of the Church. The church meaning the body of believers, not just the catholic and such.

I have come to like the current Pope, but I dont' always agree with his standpoints, I feel he has done great good. I wouldn't call him holier than anyone else, and if I were ever to meet him, I would not call him Pope or any other title, because belivers are not supposed to claim and hold titles amongst themselves, for that can lead to pride.

So you deny apostolic succession?

Because the Episocpacy says so. :rolleyes:

So your church says that it is Christian, based on the teachings of the Bible. This is where you're church leaders get their authority. Then they proceed to undermine the writings where they base their teachings and authority, right? That way no one can go to the book and see if they are wrong or not?

Sorry if this sounds inflammitory, but your arguments aren't making a whole lot of sense.

So you deny apostolic succession?

I don't. I have an Apostle at my church. Although I would deny apostolic infallibility.

No you're not (Church goer that is). Otherwise you would know that is is not a protestant Church.

Well... I am a church goer, though most of the stuff I learn comes from evangelical sources not anglican ones, which maybe why I'd forgotten this, you're right about it not being protestant, I was wrong there - I guess I'm not a perfect churchgoer then!

I don't. I have an Apostle at my church. Although I would deny apostolic infallibility.

Nobody's infallible. If anyone could find the time to give me a quick run-down of the basis for Apostollic succession I'd appreciate it... I'm a young christian.... only been one for just over a year, always keen to learn more!

So your church says that it is Christian, based on the teachings of the Bible. This is where you're church leaders get their authority. Then they proceed to undermine the writings where they base their teachings and authority, right? That way no one can go to the book and see if they are wrong or not?

Sorry if this sounds inflammitory, but your arguments aren't making a whole lot of sense.

No, my Church leaders get their authority from the Apostles, not the Bible. There is a direct lineage. Scripture is secondary, as it is not truly synoptic.

Nobody's infallible. If anyone could find the time to give me a quick run-down of the basis for Apostollic succession I'd appreciate it... I'm a young christian.... only been one for just over a year, always keen to learn more!

I've never seen any rules laid out for it, either in the Bible or by any groups. The basic idea seems to be that a lot of people (Pastors and such) recognize that seems to be what you're called to, or maybe you've effectively been doing that anyway, so some folks will get together and make it official.

The point of the apostle is to provide church government outside of the local body, so it's similar to the idea of a bishop, although the emphasis is less on administration and more on networking and starting new churches.

So you deny apostolic succession?

I deny it in the form that I see you addressing it as. From what I have read, it merely says that Timothy should continue to spread the word of G-d, because he has been chosen to by G-d. He was instructed on things, like proper marriage and how to select people to lead the church.

I don't see where it states that there is only one line, or that they are to edit the bible based on what they feel is right. He is told to teach that which Jesus taught, to teach the annointed message until Jesus returns.

No, my Church leaders get their authority from the Apostles, not the Bible. There is a direct lineage. Scripture is secondary, as it is not truly synoptic.

The Roman Catholic church claims the same thing through Peter. Again, what makes this any different from any other religion that sends it's authority down through the ages? Why are your apsotles right and the Roman Catholic ones (or the one at my church) wrong?

No, my Church leaders get their authority from the Apostles, not the Bible. There is a direct lineage. Scripture is secondary, as it is not truly synoptic.

even timothy was chosen because he was raised in the Scipture, and it was by the scripture that allowed him to be a good teacher and a proper leader. You are to know the scripture first, before even being allowed to be an elder of the church, and you are to be tested and found to be true before becoming even a deacon of the church.

Jesus warned of getting away from the Torah, for he came to fulfill it, but even unto the end of days, the law of G-d will never change. Jesus taught that it was scripture that would allow us to find the right path, and that with the right path we will find the Holy Spirit, our guide and our connection to him.

even timothy was chosen because he was raised in the Scipture, and it was by the scripture that allowed him to be a good teacher and a proper leader. You are to know the scripture first, before even being allowed to be an elder of the church, and you are to be tested and found to be true before becoming even a deacon of the church.

Jesus warned of getting away from the Torah, for he came to fulfill it, but even unto the end of days, the law of G-d will never change. Jesus taught that it was scripture that would allow us to find the right path, and that with the right path we will find the Holy Spirit, our guide and our connection to him.

This is a little off topic, but I was curious anyway. Slinao, are you Messianic Jewish?

Nobody's infallible. If anyone could find the time to give me a quick run-down of the basis for Apostollic succession I'd appreciate it... I'm a young christian.... only been one for just over a year, always keen to learn more!

In short, the doctorine of Apostollic succession holds that the authority of Christ was passed to the Apostles, and thence to Bishops of the Church. Each succeeding Bishop recieved this authority through the 'laying of hands' from an already ordained Bishop.

Thus, the Bishops of the Established Catholic Church today can trace a direct lineage back to the original apostles, who held Christ's authority and were ther true guardians of the scripture.

Naturally, this makes the the Bishops of the Established Church - in synod - infallible in matters of Holy Doctorine, as they derive their authority from Christ himself.

A major dispute between the Church of Rome, and the Established Catholic Church however arises because of the notion of Papal infalibility. The Roman Church holds that the Pope traces his authority back to Saint Peter - and is therefore supreme - whereas the Established Catholic Church believes that all Bishops are equal in succession and thus have an equal voice in the See.

Nevertheless, in today's enlightened times, Roman Catholics may recieve Communion in the Established Church, and vice versa. (Despite the whole receptionist/transubstantiation controversy).

This is a little off topic, but I was curious anyway. Slinao, are you Messianic Jewish?

I was raised in several different churchs, my father at one time being a deacon with the Catholic church, but fell out of thier graces when he divorced his first wife because she became a lesbian. So I've been exposed to many different points of view upon Christ.

My mother's mother's father was from Holland, and came from a line of Russian Jews, a very very strict group that some say makes the modern orthadox Jews look very lawless.

I never really looked too much into that way of thinking until lately, and I've been studying hebrew and jewish perspectives, and I find they make a lot of sense when looking at the way Jesus lived, and taught. The lord's prayer is basically the same format as the daily prayers of the Priest's were, only shortened down into only one prayer.

In some sence, I am a Messianic Jew, but not in the jewish way of looking at things because to detirmine if you are jewish or not its found with your mother, and since it was my mother's mother's father, I don't fit the 'requirements' I also don't hold very strict on the jewish rules and such, but I feel that Jesus kinda set most of that aside.

I was raised in several different churchs, my father at one time being a deacon with the Catholic church, but fell out of thier graces when he divorced his first wife because she became a lesbian. So I've been exposed to many different points of view upon Christ.

My mother's mother's father was from Holland, and came from a line of Russian Jews, a very very strict group that some say makes the modern orthadox Jews look very lawless.

I never really looked too much into that way of thinking until lately, and I've been studying hebrew and jewish perspectives, and I find they make a lot of sense when looking at the way Jesus lived, and taught. The lord's prayer is basically the same format as the daily prayers of the Priest's were, only shortened down into only one prayer.

In some sence, I am a Messianic Jew, but not in the jewish way of looking at things because to detirmine if you are jewish or not its found with your mother, and since it was my mother's mother's father, I don't fit the 'requirements' I also don't hold very strict on the jewish rules and such, but I feel that Jesus kinda set most of that aside.

Interesting. Thanks. Just curious.

The Roman Catholic church claims the same thing through Peter. Again, what makes this any different from any other religion that sends it's authority down through the ages? Why are your apsotles right and the Roman Catholic ones (or the one at my church) wrong?

I didn't say they were wrong, per se. Nor would my Bishops. As I said before, all are welcome in the fellowship, and no-one is turned away because of the particularities of their belief.

What is important - and I like to think mirrors exactly what Christ taught - is the fellowship itself, not obscure matters of doctorine. This is my belief, as passed on to me by my Bishops, who can trace their authority to Christ himself.

In short, the doctorine of Apostollic succession holds that the authority of Christ was passed to the Apostles, and thence to Bishops of the Church. Each succeeding Bishop recieved this authority through the 'laying of hands' from an already ordained Bishop.

Thus, the Bishops of the Established Catholic Church today can trace a direct lineage back to the original apostles, who held Christ's authority and were ther true guardians of the scripture.

Naturally, this makes the the Bishops of the Established Church - in synod - infallible in matters of Holy Doctorine, as they derive their authority from Christ himself.

A major dispute between the Church of Rome, and the Established Catholic Church however arises because of the notion of Papal infalibility. The Roman Church holds that the Pope traces his authority back to Saint Peter - and is therefore supreme - whereas the Established Catholic Church believes that all Bishops are equal in succession and thus have an equal voice in the See.

Nevertheless, in today's enlightened times, Roman Catholics may recieve Communion in the Established Church, and vice versa. (Despite the whole receptionist/transubstantiation controversy).


Even Saul/Paul says that he still falls to sin at times, and he prays that Timothy doesn't fall to evil spirits or demons and their false teachings. That shows that everyone is fallible. Under Christ's message, all his followers are to annointed others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to teach the good news, and he never said that we were to only follow what the Bishops and such taught. The bible may be written by man, and may be fallible, but the Holy Spirit is infallible, and through its guidance we find the light, even in the darkness of this world. As Saul/Paul was found by the spirit, even when he was lost to sin, so can every human be found by G-d.

I have been a Christian all my life and I have been to various churchs. I have never been told it is compulsery to go to church. Certianly it is very helpful to your spiritual wellbeing but its not nessecary. If you dont benefit from it spiritually then there is very little point in going. You can study the Bible yourself and be in a relationship with God just as well

As far as the praying to saints, mary etc, I agree. I don't see any place for that. Mary was a virtiuous women yes but she wasn't divine or anything like that. The saints are amazing people too, but they are not divine. Nor is their any structuring from Jesus about who to pray to beyond God. I see no reason to pray to the dead when we can be celebrating the living God.

Even Saul/Paul says that he still falls to sin at times, and he prays that Timothy doesn't fall to evil spirits or demons and their false teachings. That shows that everyone is fallible. Under Christ's message, all his followers are to annointed others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to teach the good news, and he never said that we were to only follow what the Bishops and such taught. The bible may be written by man, and may be fallible, but the Holy Spirit is infallible, and through its guidance we find the light, even in the darkness of this world. As Saul/Paul was found by the spirit, even when he was lost to sin, so can every human be found by G-d.

Yes, Bishops are fallible, as they are men. But not in matters of doctorine. In that case they are guided of the holy ghost, and are infallible. (Which is why they are empowered to reject the evil portions of the bible as untrue, and holding the apostolic mission: For example, my Church allows gays to marry).

I have been a Christian all my life and I have been to various churchs. I have never been told it is compulsery to go to church. Certianly it is very helpful to your spiritual wellbeing but its not nessecary. If you dont benefit from it spiritually then there is very little point in going. You can study the Bible yourself and be in a relationship with God just as well

As far as the praying to saints, mary etc, I agree. I don't see any place for that. Mary was a virtiuous women yes but she wasn't divine or anything like that. The saints are amazing people too, but they are not divine. Nor is their any structuring from Jesus about who to pray to beyond God. I see no reason to pray to the dead when we can be celebrating the living God.

very true, I think I agree with fully. We have a living Messiah, and a Living G-d, and we have the Holy Spirit living within us. Why do we need others to act on our behalf?

very true, I think I agree with fully. We have a living Messiah, and a Living G-d, and we have the Holy Spirit living within us. Why do we need others to act on our behalf?

I am curious, do you take communion?

Yes, Bishops are fallible, as they are men. But not in matters of doctorine. In that case they are guided of the holy ghost, and are infallible. (Which is why they are empowered to reject the evil portions of the bible as untrue, and holding the apostolic mission: For example, my Church allows gays to marry).

the holy ghost/spirit is infallible, but we are not, and we may not understand nor fully see what is being shown to us by the Holy Spirit. The Torah of G-d will never change, Jesus spoke these to the people around him. G-d has set his laws, the only thing that has changed is the punishment isn't there anymore. You either have faith or you don't. You make the choice, and thats all the more it goes. We are all judged, but not with a book of our deeds, and based on the deeds get deamed yay or nay for eternal life. we live by jesus's death

I am curious, do you take communion?

I take communion outside of the church, though sometimes with the church. I take communion and I remember my Mashiach, and what he had to suffer to fulfill what must be done to save us all. To know that by his blood and body I am saved, and that sin no longer has power over me.

Well... I'm from a more modern day liberal sect... but to be honest... the term Christian pretty much mean that you are part of the body of Christ... therefore a community of believers. The church, by definition, is a community of believers. A building does not make the church, but the people make the church. However, squabbles have occured between different denomination has occured over doctrine and theology. I feel this is where the original problem of the church has occured. The original problem isn't necessarily that the different denominations have different interpretations of what doctrine should be or how to interpret the scriptures in order to build theology, but that some denominations become so incredibly wrapped up in their own theologies, interpretations, and doctrines that those things have become more important than the scriptures themselves. Essentially this is the same crime that Jesus has accused the Pharisees of. It's not because they have too many laws, but that the laws have taken a greater precedent than that of doing what is right before the Lord. One of the most important aspect, in my opinion, of a healthy church is one of that encourages theological studies of the scriptures themselves not the constant pounding of doctrine into the minds of the parish. Let Christians read the scriptures, interpret the scriptures, and open a healthy dialogue within the believers so that free exchange of ideas and opinions occur. Note, the first churches never met in established building, but in people's homes and also, Paul took advantage of forums under the Greek tradition of exchanging of ideas, he didn't spurn them. So why should churches spurn such discourse? I don't see why not.

If I were wrong, and I refused to admit it, would you forgive me for my transgressions?

Faith is from G-d, and Jesus gave us the Spirit so that we could be closer to G-d. The holy of holies was torn, and the temple wasn't needed anymore, because to find G-d, we merely had to pray, and he was within us all.

Sh-ddai, the all sufficent G-d has turned his face upon all those that accept his son, and that is a blessing unlike any other. We are the lights of this world, and we conquer over death through Jesus.

We are meant to do things greater then even Jesus did, and yet our faith stumbles. I pray that our faith is restored, that our trust becomes divine oncemore.

To sound kinda repetitive to the rest of the world and sterotypical,

Our Father in heaven
May your name be kept holy
my your kingdom come
your will be done on earth as in heaven

give us the food we need today
forgive us what we have done wrong
as we too have forgiven those who have wronged us
and do not lead us into hard teasting
but keep us safe from the Evil One,

Amen.

In response to the whole spirituality vs. law in faith debate... I go for a balance... because spirituality without law lacks direction, but law without spirituality is hollow...

In response to the whole spirituality vs. law in faith debate... I go for a balance... because spirituality without law lacks direction, but law without spirituality is hollow...

I find that spirituality and law are about the samething. the torah is there to guide us, just as the holy spirit is there to guide us. one gives us a view of the world of man, the other gives us a taste of the world of G-d.

Since man is both spirit and worldly, sometimes we need one or the other to help us in matters. one must feed the spirit, not just with prayer and faith, but with wisdom as well.

I agree, a balance is needed, though I think different people will find that balance in different places and times.

shalom/peace

I find that spirituality and law are about the samething. the torah is there to guide us, just as the holy spirit is there to guide us. one gives us a view of the world of man, the other gives us a taste of the world of G-d.

Since man is both spirit and worldly, sometimes we need one or the other to help us in matters. one must feed the spirit, not just with prayer and faith, but with wisdom as well.

I agree, a balance is needed, though I think different people will find that balance in different places and times.
mmm... I guess I equate spirituality with the general unbounded spirtuality orientated folks who declare that doctrine and whatnot are too binding... I feel the original Mosaic laws are laws that are created from theological studies, interpretations, and doctrine. I feel doctrine is the very foundation upon which laws are determined. Hence my belief that this is the reason why the Bible is meant to be a dynamic collection of texts. The old testament tells of two stories... one, a moral one of following the laws and two, a guiding story of how people in different circumstances adapt to the laws of another country and become great people in the eyes of God and many generations to come. I feel this may have been what Jesus was teaching from the OT... Nonetheless, as I somewhat insinuated before... the general church doctrine is only as important as far as it assists in worshiping God... A church doctrine should be a general framework under which a person should shape their faith. A growing Christian must challenge and shape their own faith according to their own interpretations of the scriptures and taking into consideration of what others have gathered from the scriptures. This is the power of community... it's in the believer, not in the building.

I am curious, do you take communion?

Yes, the only reason being because as Jesus said "in rememberance of me". No other reason.