The current Christian Church

[Allie]

Firstly, let me say like I always do, that I am very young. Please be patient with me, as I am quite new at debating and make mistakes.

Here we go:

The perfect church. I've been thinking about this for a while, and would like to hear your ideas. Keep in mind that we are talking a Christian church, and while I respect all of your views, for this thread we are talking Christianity.

I didn't post on the Christian-only board because I would like to hear the non-Theist opinions.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you think the church is currently set up in the best possible way? If not, how would you change it?
2. Do you think any vital part of Christianity is missing in the church today?

For example, I think it would be much better to have the church split into groups. Everyone is on a different level, so the more advanced Christians would go and delve deep into the Bible and into the details, while the new Christians would hear more of the basic message. There could be many groups, with certain teachers specializing in certain types of teaching--I think that would be wonderful.

Also, I think churches today are missing something incredibly vital--prayer! We won't feel the power of prayer if we don't pray! At my church, at least, there is no deep prayer. I think that is extremely important.

With that said, go ahead and post your opinions! I'm excited.

[spiritletter]

First of all, the Church is the people. The building is simply a meeting place. Second, the work of the Church is not to feed hungry people or house the homeless. Those would be good works for individuals to do, but the work of the Church is first and foremost to preach and teach the word of God. And last, the bible has condemned homosexuality.

If you want to worship the True and Living God of the Bible you must do so as we have been directed by the New Testament.

By the lessons of Jesus, or by the lessons of Paul, whose theology was directly opposed to what Jesus taught?

Do you concentrate on the message Jesus brought, or what is taught by Paul about Jesus?

They are one in the same. I will need you to be more specific.

For the most part, in the words attributed by Jesus, there is a general attitude to compassion, "What you have done to the least of your brothers you have done to me", and examples of him reaching out to the poor, the blind, the Samaritans (who were considered weird and outcast of their day).

Paul concentrated on control over women, getting certain laws overturned, and had a certain obsession about sex, to the point of violating the compassion that it is portrayed that Jesus had.[/quote]

Excellent response.

Even the gospels show evidence of tampering. For example, the moralizing voice in Matthew is different from the voice of the parables. And Paul, of course, was yet another generation removed. I am ambivalent about Paul: parts of him are beautiful, other parts scary.

[Mere_Christian]

I you want the best definition of "True Christianity" listen to a sensible atheist.

[tlong]

First of all, the Church is the people. The building is simply a meeting place. Second, the work of the Church is not to feed hungry people or house the homeless. Those would be good works for individuals to do, but the work of the Church is first and foremost to preach and teach the word of God. And last, the bible has condemned homosexuality.

If you want to worship the True and Living God of the Bible you must do so as we have been directed by the New Testament.

By the lessons of Jesus, or by the lessons of Paul, whose theology was directly opposed to what Jesus taught?

Do you concentrate on the message Jesus brought, or what is taught by Paul about Jesus?

They are one in the same. I will need you to be more specific.

For the most part, in the words attributed by Jesus, there is a general attitude to compassion, "What you have done to the least of your brothers you have done to me", and examples of him reaching out to the poor, the blind, the Samaritans (who were considered weird and outcast of their day).

Paul concentrated on control over women, getting certain laws overturned, and had a certain obsession about sex, to the point of violating the compassion that it is portrayed that Jesus had.

Excellent response.

Even the gospels show evidence of tampering. For example, the moralizing voice in Matthew is different from the voice of the parables. And Paul, of course, was yet another generation removed. I am ambivalent about Paul: parts of him are beautiful, other parts scary.[/quote]



Maybe I did not make myself clear. Can you show me some specific examples of what you guys are saying? Maybe a verse or two from the bible. The only things I have heard are accusations without pointing to any specifics.

[Goat]

First of all, the Church is the people. The building is simply a meeting place. Second, the work of the Church is not to feed hungry people or house the homeless. Those would be good works for individuals to do, but the work of the Church is first and foremost to preach and teach the word of God. And last, the bible has condemned homosexuality.

If you want to worship the True and Living God of the Bible you must do so as we have been directed by the New Testament.

By the lessons of Jesus, or by the lessons of Paul, whose theology was directly opposed to what Jesus taught?

Do you concentrate on the message Jesus brought, or what is taught by Paul about Jesus?

They are one in the same. I will need you to be more specific.

For the most part, in the words attributed by Jesus, there is a general attitude to compassion, "What you have done to the least of your brothers you have done to me", and examples of him reaching out to the poor, the blind, the Samaritans (who were considered weird and outcast of their day).

Paul concentrated on control over women, getting certain laws overturned, and had a certain obsession about sex, to the point of violating the compassion that it is portrayed that Jesus had.

Excellent response.

Even the gospels show evidence of tampering. For example, the moralizing voice in Matthew is different from the voice of the parables. And Paul, of course, was yet another generation removed. I am ambivalent about Paul: parts of him are beautiful, other parts scary.

Maybe I did not make myself clear. Can you show me some specific examples of what you guys are saying? Maybe a verse or two from the bible. The only things I have heard are accusations without pointing to any specifics.[/quote]

Compare the letter fro Romans with the parable of the woman accused of adultery.

[Mere_Christian]

.

Simply, it is the ONE we find in the NEW TESTAMENT. Which means that most churches today are way out of wack!

What makes the New Testament an authority on gods?

The audacity of hope.

There are thousands of "gods" available for worship and tens of thousands of religions " many with accompanying "holy books". None can be shown to represent truth.

Wow, now you are the absolute truth knower. When do we get your filing as a religion/church?

The "New Testament" was produced by a government appointed committee from selected writings of unidentified people from hundreds of years earlier (reporting events and conversations that supposedly happened many decades prior to writing). None of the original writings are available, nor are the earliest bibles.

More absolutes?

The New Testament writings are impressive precisely because of the selection process. It doesn't make any sense that a bunch of guys trying to dominate earth would include much of the words that condemn their attempt to subjugate the world to their demands. The "contradictions" in the New Testament are pointed at those that try to use it as a guide for ruling as rulers.

Once produced by the committee, the work was variously transcribed, translated, revised, modified, rewritten and edited by countless unidentified people " and is available in 100+ "versions" in English alone.

Very impressively. "It" weeded out those that violate "its" guidelines for being a believer. One thing about the New Testament writings that did make it to print, is that it is very harsh on those that violate "its" precepts. How contradicting a treatise it is for those that deire to subjugate others.

You may want to see a piece of writing that doie that. Reference the Humanist Manifesto in its many versions.

The work is known to contain errors of fact, internal contradictions and inconsistencies, and fictional parts.

Sounds like you've found the human injection parts. Didn't Thomas Jefferson try to weed out parts of it as well? And he still thought that there was a real Jesus dude. There is enough decent works FROM Christians that give us a good version of reality New Testament style. Jesus is God there. And a dude.

What parts, if any, of which "version" are authentic, literally true, "the word of god", or accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus?

Go with the latest version or versions that stick to the Deity/Savior model. And how to follow that model. That seems the very accurate version. The "Anything Goes" ideology/theology, seems that heresy/mythology. Lot's of people have died saying that they were Christians because of supernaturalism, I've never known of one that denied this and ran to their martyrdom.

Each of the churches that are identified as being "way out of wack" are based upon beliefs that they are doing things correctly (often that they are the only sect worshiping correctly).

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. The New Testament contains the definition for being a right Church/follower. Even if you demand that the inconsistencies and contradictions stand, there's "The Way, and there is error to "being" a Christian. And also, you have to expect a group claiming to be following the truth, claiming that they are following the truth. But comparing what they say to what is supposedly said (written down) by the Apostles/Disciples/writers of the New Testament can guide one to a sensible definition of Christian truth. Jude, John, Peter, and Paul make this clear, even if, you demand that the New Testament is bunk. Oh yeah, and Jesus details a member and a non-member. Let's not forget Him.

How is it that any sect or any individual can KNOW that they are right and others wrong? Who has authority to make that decision and by whom was it granted?

Ask an atheist that question? They seem to have every answer for literally every thing.

As a Non-Theist, I enjoy seeing people who identify themselves as Christians condemn others who identify themselves as Christians as being wrong.

You mean like the writers of the New Testament did? Even condemning some if not many of the people that compiled the New Testament into a bound book?

Doing so reduces credibility of the entire religion " and makes apparent for all to see some of the defects in supernaturalism.

How fascinating a perspective of yours. It was precisely this action that drew me to Christian ideoloy and then to Christian declarations. I based my choice and decisions on the writings of the New Testament.

Here's what I always tell people. Read the 4 Gospels - then you will know all about the FOUNDER of the Church.

And Acts. The rest of the works are referencing what people did "in" the Church. The Church being a belief system and not just a building.

Correction: Reading the gospels will provide some information about the character that forms the basis of ONE of the major religions of the world.

Some information? That would be what the Gospels convey.

There is considerable disagreement regarding what is known about Jesus " with some doubt regarding existence and/or divinity.

Only in those that reject what the New Testament writers had to say. That would not show inconsistencies IN the NT though, but with people that do not want to adhere to what is in those letters and reports.

The gospels do not provide enough information to say "you will know all about the founder of the church".

That statement just about eliminates your opinion from any converstion of a serious nature. It is just that far out.

There is nothing contained in the gospels that provides evidence that the religious beliefs promoted are authentic or are in any way superior to any other beliefs.

Huh? The Gospels demand a direction of only one way. Jesus is that way. Are you saying that there is any other message "in" the Gospels? The writers of the New Testamwent letters and reports already have issue with you.

You can't swipe away Christian reality just because you say so.

In spite of grandiose claims made by proponents,

For the record, those claims are made IN the New Testament BY the writers of it.

the gospels are nothing more than religious promotional materials that cannot be shown to be truthful, literal or accurate.

So sayeth you. A few hundreds of millions of people have another opinion. I stand in the latter.

Your opinion is noted and found to be oh-so common, but not as powerful as you seem to present.



That personal OP/Ed, is worth just reaqding and filing in the appropriate place.

[spiritletter]

.

Simply, it is the ONE we find in the NEW TESTAMENT. Which means that most churches today are way out of wack!

What makes the New Testament an authority on gods?

The audacity of hope.

There are thousands of "gods" available for worship and tens of thousands of religions " many with accompanying "holy books". None can be shown to represent truth.

Wow, now you are the absolute truth knower. When do we get your filing as a religion/church?

The "New Testament" was produced by a government appointed committee from selected writings of unidentified people from hundreds of years earlier (reporting events and conversations that supposedly happened many decades prior to writing). None of the original writings are available, nor are the earliest bibles.

More absolutes?

The New Testament writings are impressive precisely because of the selection process. It doesn't make any sense that a bunch of guys trying to dominate earth would include much of the words that condemn their attempt to subjugate the world to their demands. The "contradictions" in the New Testament are pointed at those that try to use it as a guide for ruling as rulers.

Once produced by the committee, the work was variously transcribed, translated, revised, modified, rewritten and edited by countless unidentified people " and is available in 100+ "versions" in English alone.

Very impressively. "It" weeded out those that violate "its" guidelines for being a believer. One thing about the New Testament writings that did make it to print, is that it is very harsh on those that violate "its" precepts. How contradicting a treatise it is for those that deire to subjugate others.

You may want to see a piece of writing that doie that. Reference the Humanist Manifesto in its many versions.

The work is known to contain errors of fact, internal contradictions and inconsistencies, and fictional parts.

Sounds like you've found the human injection parts. Didn't Thomas Jefferson try to weed out parts of it as well? And he still thought that there was a real Jesus dude. There is enough decent works FROM Christians that give us a good version of reality New Testament style. Jesus is God there. And a dude.

What parts, if any, of which "version" are authentic, literally true, "the word of god", or accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus?

Go with the latest version or versions that stick to the Deity/Savior model. And how to follow that model. That seems the very accurate version. The "Anything Goes" ideology/theology, seems that heresy/mythology. Lot's of people have died saying that they were Christians because of supernaturalism, I've never known of one that denied this and ran to their martyrdom.

Each of the churches that are identified as being "way out of wack" are based upon beliefs that they are doing things correctly (often that they are the only sect worshiping correctly).

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. The New Testament contains the definition for being a right Church/follower. Even if you demand that the inconsistencies and contradictions stand, there's "The Way, and there is error to "being" a Christian. And also, you have to expect a group claiming to be following the truth, claiming that they are following the truth. But comparing what they say to what is supposedly said (written down) by the Apostles/Disciples/writers of the New Testament can guide one to a sensible definition of Christian truth. Jude, John, Peter, and Paul make this clear, even if, you demand that the New Testament is bunk. Oh yeah, and Jesus details a member and a non-member. Let's not forget Him.

How is it that any sect or any individual can KNOW that they are right and others wrong? Who has authority to make that decision and by whom was it granted?

Ask an atheist that question? They seem to have every answer for literally every thing.

As a Non-Theist, I enjoy seeing people who identify themselves as Christians condemn others who identify themselves as Christians as being wrong.

You mean like the writers of the New Testament did? Even condemning some if not many of the people that compiled the New Testament into a bound book?

Doing so reduces credibility of the entire religion " and makes apparent for all to see some of the defects in supernaturalism.

How fascinating a perspective of yours. It was precisely this action that drew me to Christian ideoloy and then to Christian declarations. I based my choice and decisions on the writings of the New Testament.

Here's what I always tell people. Read the 4 Gospels - then you will know all about the FOUNDER of the Church.

And Acts. The rest of the works are referencing what people did "in" the Church. The Church being a belief system and not just a building.

Correction: Reading the gospels will provide some information about the character that forms the basis of ONE of the major religions of the world.

Some information? That would be what the Gospels convey.

There is considerable disagreement regarding what is known about Jesus " with some doubt regarding existence and/or divinity.

Only in those that reject what the New Testament writers had to say. That would not show inconsistencies IN the NT though, but with people that do not want to adhere to what is in those letters and reports.

The gospels do not provide enough information to say "you will know all about the founder of the church".

That statement just about eliminates your opinion from any converstion of a serious nature. It is just that far out.

There is nothing contained in the gospels that provides evidence that the religious beliefs promoted are authentic or are in any way superior to any other beliefs.

Huh? The Gospels demand a direction of only one way. Jesus is that way. Are you saying that there is any other message "in" the Gospels? The writers of the New Testamwent letters and reports already have issue with you.

You can't swipe away Christian reality just because you say so.

In spite of grandiose claims made by proponents,

For the record, those claims are made IN the New Testament BY the writers of it.

the gospels are nothing more than religious promotional materials that cannot be shown to be truthful, literal or accurate.

So sayeth you. A few hundreds of millions of people have another opinion. I stand in the latter.

Your opinion is noted and found to be oh-so common, but not as powerful as you seem to present.



That personal OP/Ed, is worth just reaqding and filing in the appropriate place.

I've been revisiting Christianity at age 65, attending a lectio divina group and Taize services at a local church, and rereading the gospels. I am older now, and the gospels are very different seen through life experience and education.

In terms of the current church, I'm tempted to ask WHICH current church? There is a broad range from progressive to conservative to violent and hateful. It has little to do with denomination. This confusion has led me to believe that it is the individual church that matters, and the good will (or lack thereof) of its members and leadership.

Similarly, I've been reading a lot about the Bible and about the early vs. later Christian church, and determined the following:

Christ was not interested in in founding a religion called Christianity. He was attempting to teach all he met, with the hope that they would spread the "Good News." He was remarkable man, although the various gospels offer different versions of him, often in the same gospel. I've reread Matthew, Mark and John so far (starting Luke today), and I find a marked difference between them. I find John the most convincing. It seems to be written one voice. Matthew and Mark seem to have two voices in them, the Christ of the parables, and the Christ of admonition. For example, I find the shriveling of the fig tree a scare tactic: this is what I will do to you if you do not act according to my expectations. This is the voice I find false. I am more convinced by the Christ of the parables: the parables seem to link the gospels together and provide a spontaneous, flexible spirituality. The other voice I find in the gospels, although not in John, seems to want to standardize and moralize. I am not alone in this observation. Theologians like Elaine Pagels and Cynthia Bourgeault have observed the same, and suggested that early Christianity is more complex than is expressed in much of contemporary Christianity. I will, of course, seek counsel, read more, and experience more.

In the nineteen sixties I read and sometimes became active in Buddhism, Sufism and various forms of Hinduism, as was the fashion. It taught me a lot, and my return to Christianity later in life was enriched by it. Sometimes passing through different forms of spirituality can illuminate the religion of one's upbringing. I was particularly drawn to Sufism, with its interest in parables and teaching stories. Some of the parables of Christ affect me the same way, take me out of my conditioned mind into a place where the wisdom can penetrate in its non-conventional way.

This is the path I've chosen. I find that moralizing is almost always an obstacle to the truly moral, that is, looking through a lens of love rather than judgment.

It is for this reason that I find the current discussion discouraging and off putting. What happened to good will? What happened to openness to the ideas of others? What happened to humility? Oh well.

[Mere_Christian]

I've been revisiting Christianity at age 65, attending a lectio divina group and Taize services at a local church, and rereading the gospels. I am older now, and the gospels are very different seen through life experience and education.

Wow, what a fantastic endeavor. I also believe that when believers from different expressions come together, you see whatever it is that the Apostles had delivered to them. I think you're on the correct path.

In terms of the current church, I'm tempted to ask WHICH current church?

Amen brother. I've returned to the Apostolic delivery. I'm a bit put-off od both pop Christianity and I'm rapidly tiring of the whole Americen versus the People planet earth thing.

There is a broad range from progressive to conservative to violent and hateful.

I've come to the decision that "progressive" means humanism. Humanism is anti-Christ. Conservtive has not embraced a different Gospel, they just mangle it sometimes.

It has little to do with denomination.

Yup. Or rather, amen.

This confusion has led me to believe that it is the individual church that matters, and the good will (or lack thereof) of its members and leadership.

Preach it preacher.

Similarly, I've been reading a lot about the Bible and about the early vs. later Christian church, and determined the following:

First though, reading whose perspective? Spong versus Lewis are as different as night and day. Literally. One is a Christian very much in the line of the Apostles and and the other is not. The "not one" is Spong by the way.

Christ was not interested in in founding a religion called Christianity.

He never heard the word this side of supernaturalism.

He was attempting to teach all he met, with the hope that they would spread the "Good News."

Yes, "but." There were some He condemned. In no uncertain terms, condemned. Acording to the Apostolic testimony.

He was remarkable man, although the various gospels offer different versions of him, often in the same gospel.

That sounds very logical. He was - as you say - a man. And of course the Creator of all things at the same time. I'm thinking here, that is a hard thing to describe for us solely humans. I've never seen any "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" that didn't define the faith delivered only once to the Saints as a consistent message. An extremely consistent message. One universal (catholic) and Apostolic faith that is.

I've reread Matthew, Mark and John so far (starting Luke today), and I find a marked difference between them.

You wanted robots? Automatons? That would be a far worse situation for those that want to attack the veracity of the New Testament.

I find John the most convincing.

So do I. Logic and reason are his friends.

It seems to be written one voice. Matthew and Mark seem to have two voices in them, the Christ of the parables, and the Christ of admonition.

Jesus takes on many issues. each one needing a different treatment. That's why I cast off skepticism as mostly just pouty childish rants and tantrums. I have gone from atheist to believer by looking at the Apostolic witness (The New Testament) as a great work of super advice. Literally super advice.

For example, I find the shriveling of the fig tree a scare tactic: this is what I will do to you if you do not act according to my expectations. This is the voice I find false.

Really. I see it as between Jesus and His creation. he was also just as ticked off at the Israelites as God the Son as was God the Father. I see yet again, consistency.

I am more convinced by the Christ of the parables: the parables seem to link the gospels together and provide a spontaneous, flexible spirituality.

Flexible? The parables? The smash people to bits. They break down the liars and sinners and show them for what they are. Then Jesus rebuilds their temples from outside in and then inside out. Another very consistent message looking at the story of the Israelite experience with God.

The other voice I find in the gospels, although not in John, seems to want to standardize and moralize. I am not alone in this observation. Theologians like Elaine Pagels and Cynthia Bourgeault have observed the same, and suggested that early Christianity is more complex than is expressed in much of contemporary Christianity. I will, of course, seek counsel, read more, and experience more.

You call the obvious theology? Why not just call it obvious. The Gospels present an actual reality. A loving person in Jesus and the Almighty God. They show a judge a jury and an executioner that desires to let you off the hook even when you ARE guilty. This contradiction is a very consistent theme throughout every booklet/letter of the Bible.

In the nineteen sixties I read and sometimes became active in Buddhism, Sufism and various forms of Hinduism, as was the fashion. It taught me a lot, and my return to Christianity later in life was enriched by it.

God is encoded in our DNA. And I view this in the compassionate atheist. Anyone that denies God exists because of injustice and cruelty and suffering is a far bit closer to God than a hypocrite so-called believer. That kind of atheism is not sociopathic.

Sometimes passing through different forms of spirituality can illuminate the religion of one's upbringing.

Uhhh, I don't know about that. I'll have to contemplate that one for awhile.

I was particularly drawn to Sufism, with its interest in parables and teaching stories. Some of the parables of Christ affect me the same way, take me out of my conditioned mind into a place where the wisdom can penetrate in its non-conventional way.

That seems to be the cause and effect, the reason for, speaking in parables. ONLY those God allows to understand them, will understand them. That may suck, but it appears a provable occurence.

This is the path I've chosen. I find that moralizing is almost always an obstacle to the truly moral, that is, looking through a lens of love rather than judgment.

You can get a deadly disease from ONLY looking through the lens of love. Judgmentsalism is a divine gift to keep onesself safe. Where does it say that we cannot judge things or people? As long as we start with ourselves, it appears that judging is a rather healthy endeavor.

It is for this reason that I find the current discussion discouraging and off putting.

Start another thread, as you seem very worthwhile. Alhough, you certainly are a shining part of this thread.

What happened to good will?

Subjugation. The left versus the right. The Atheist versus the Christian. And et all ad infinitum.

What happened to openness to the ideas of others?

Skepticism has become a ruling political classification.

What happened to humility?

Humans.

Oh well.

Oh well? You are delivering a much better message than just "oh well."

C'mon now.

[spiritletter]

Mere Christian:

I never though humanism was the "anti-Christ." I always thought of it as a predictable response to the Catholic Inquisition and general corruption in the church.

I also think that Constantine did a lot of damage to the teachings of Christ by his interpretation (which made the Inquisition possible).

In terms of the fig tree, I did not read that as an allegory, but rather as a "miracle," which I thought was kind of negative compared to the healing of the blind, etc. Maybe I'll revisit it as an allegory and see if it works, sort or like the seed sewn on good ground.

In addition to the four canonical gospels, I have read various translations of the Gospel of Thomas, which present Christ as a wisdom teacher rather than an embodiment of God. You might find The Wisdom Jesus, by Cynthia Bourgeault, as fascinating as I did.

My interpretation of the parables has always been in the light of the Zen Koan, the Sufi tale, and the Hassidic tale: stories that open the mind to higher forms of perception than the usual didacticism.

I don't know what you mean by Pop Christianity. Televangelism?

[Sender]

Are we allowed to copy and paste? I thought we weren't allowed to, at least back in the day.

[spiritletter]

I don't know. You'll have to ask the site monitors.