The Theory Of Creation

[champuru]

Because it does exactly nothing to improve your relationship with God. Isn't that the goal of every Christian? How, exactly, does giving money to a church help anyone but the church?

Well in a way it does, it allows the owners of the church to pay its bills, pay for teaching material, pay for the upkeep of the building, and whatever else the church needs to pay for. In return you receive the teaching of the pastor/priest/what have you, a building in which you can discuss bible and related God topics with others who believe similarly, to gain theological knowledge you may not have had before, a place you can freely worship with others. It also brings the people who dont regularly study the bible closer to God for sure because otherwise they would have little to no knowledge about what the bible says.

On the other hand if a person belongs to a church they dislike they should
A) probably leave
B) donate to some charity instead
A person who belongs to a megachurch should (in my opinion) donate to charity (even if they like the church)

 

[champuru]

Do you think that should stop us from trying?

In my opinion we should never stop trying. who knows, things that are great mysteries today may be just everyday knowledge in the future.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well in a way it does, it allows the owners of the church to pay its bills, pay for teaching material, pay for the upkeep of the building, and whatever else the church needs to pay for. In return you receive the teaching of the pastor/priest/what have you, a building in which you can discuss bible and related God topics with others who believe similarly, to gain theological knowledge you may not have had before, a place you can freely worship with others.

Yet one does not need a special building for this. In my experience, churches are glorified bookclubs (no offence, just an observation), and the latter rarely have dedicated buildings. Besides, if a person has accepted the sacrifice Jesus Christ in their hearts, and acknowledge him as their Lord and Saviour, isn't the rest of the Bible superfluous?

It also brings the people who dont regularly study the bible closer to God for sure because otherwise they would have little to no knowledge about what the bible says.

I'm not sure I agree with this; if a person wanted to read the Bible, it isn't too hard to pick one up and start at Genesis 1:1.

On the other hand if a person belongs to a church they dislike they should
A) probably leave
B) donate to some charity instead
A person who belongs to a megachurch should (in my opinion) donate to charity (even if they like the church)

A megachurch? Is that like the Catholic church, St. Paul's Cathedral, or money-grabbing televangelist sites?

 

[Melethiel]

Yet one does not need a special building for this. In my experience, churches are glorified bookclubs (no offence, just an observation), and the latter rarely have dedicated buildings.

While one does not NEED a special building, in my experience, having the specific architecture, art, etc which all have special meanings is very helpful. Sure, in a pinch you can set up an altar in an auditorium, but it's not quite the same.

Besides, if a person has accepted the sacrifice Jesus Christ in their hearts, and acknowledge him as their Lord and Saviour, isn't the rest of the Bible superfluous?

Absolutely not. It seems like you're buying into the travesty that modern megachurches (which tend to be the loudest) have made of Christianity, not what it really is and has been for centuries. Christianity is so much more than "accept Jesus, now you're good."

A megachurch? Is that like the Catholic church, St. Paul's Cathedral, or money-grabbing televangelist sites?

The latter.

 

[shernren]

Big stately buildings are cool. That much is indisputable. And that's good enough reason to build big stately buildings. ^^

 

[Wiccan_Child]

While one does not NEED a special building, in my experience, having the specific architecture, art, etc which all have special meanings is very helpful. Sure, in a pinch you can set up an altar in an auditorium, but it's not quite the same.

I agree, but this does not explain Jerrel's dismay:

Why in the world would u want to talk your wife out of tihting Tinker Grey ?

Absolutely not. It seems like you're buying into the travesty that modern megachurches (which tend to be the loudest) have made of Christianity, not what it really is and has been for centuries. Christianity is so much more than "accept Jesus, now you're good."

I don't see how. Once one has accepted Jesus, one is officially a Christian and is getting into Heaven. The Bible emphasises faith over works, after all; while the rest is preferable (giving to charity, etc), it isn't necessary.

 

[Melethiel]

I don't see how. Once one has accepted Jesus, one is officially a Christian and is getting into Heaven. The Bible emphasises faith over works, after all; while the rest is preferable (giving to charity, etc), it isn't necessary.

Sounds like the popular evangelical "once saved always saved" idea, which is not held by the majority of Christians.
While we are justified by faith alone, and saved by Christ alone, Christianity does not end when you "accept Jesus" (a term that I also have problems with). That is only the beginning. It is possible to fall away, and one will lose faith if they do not stay grounded in the Vine by studying Scripture, partaking of the Sacraments, praying, etc.

This idea of "accept Jesus, now you're good" is very recent.

 

[gluadys]

Besides, if a person has accepted the sacrifice Jesus Christ in their hearts, and acknowledge him as their Lord and Saviour, isn't the rest of the Bible superfluous?

Definitely not. Salvation is only an initial step. A Christian life-style also needs to be developed ( a process called sanctification). People don't automatically know how to be Christian the moment they become Christian. Yet the credibility of the gospel depends on how Christians behave. Much of the Bible is devoted to directing people toward "righteousness" or a proper way of living with each other.

In fact, one reason I became dissatisfied with typical evangelical preaching was lack of information on this point. So much emphasis was put on becoming Christian and so little on being Christian, that I was left with the impression that all one was expected to do between accepting Christ and death/second coming was twiddle one's thumbs. I figured there had to be more to Christianity than that.

I'm not sure I agree with this; if a person wanted to read the Bible, it isn't too hard to pick one up and start at Genesis 1:1.

No, but it's awfully hard to get far beyond the first few chapters of Leviticus, and the hardy souls who make it through that almost always flounder in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles.

And the fact is, much of the bible just doesn't make sense without a coherent way of studying it. Just the fact that we bring our modern baggage to an ancient text means we get a lot wrong when we read it without some study help.


All this said, however, it still only means one needs a church, not necessarily a church building.

Oh, and a mega-church is a congregation with a membership numbering in the thousands. It is one congregation, not a denomination. It may be independent or be part of a denomination. Several Presbyterian churches in Korea are mega-churches.

Most congregations have membership roles less than 1,000, often less than 500.

 

[champuru]

Yet one does not need a special building for this. In my experience, churches are glorified bookclubs (no offence, just an observation), and the latter rarely have dedicated buildings. Besides, if a person has accepted the sacrifice Jesus Christ in their hearts, and acknowledge him as their Lord and Saviour, isn't the rest of the Bible superfluous?

No offence taken, In fact a church is a book club (the book they read is the bible). Many churches start out as home groups (very similar to book clubs) but usually move to a (church)building once there are too many members to be in a home. Think about your largest room in your house. How many people can you fit comfortably in that room? The number isnt very high.

I'm not sure I agree with this; if a person wanted to read the Bible, it isn't too hard to pick one up and start at Genesis 1:1.

Agreed. It is not hard to start, but it is hard to get through it and understand it. Sure you could look up parts you dont understand on the internet, but that is tedious, time consuming work. Especially if you are at work all day and do not have time to do such things.

A megachurch? Is that like the Catholic church, St. Paul's Cathedral, or money-grabbing televangelist sites?

the money-grabbing televangelists

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Definitely not. Salvation is only an initial step. A Christian life-style also needs to be developed ( a process called sanctification). People don't automatically know how to be Christian the moment they become Christian.

Which is sort of my point: there isn't a way to 'be' Christian, one simply is.

Consider: if you've been saved and are getting into Heaven, what else is there to do?

Yet the credibility of the gospel depends on how Christians behave. Much of the Bible is devoted to directing people toward "righteousness" or a proper way of living with each other.

Indeed: to eschew sin. But such behaviour is not required to get into Heaven. Right?

In fact, one reason I became dissatisfied with typical evangelical preaching was lack of information on this point. So much emphasis was put on becoming Christian and so little on being Christian, that I was left with the impression that all one was expected to do between accepting Christ and death/second coming was twiddle one's thumbs. I figured there had to be more to Christianity than that.

Why? It makes the most theological sense to me: if an omnipotent being wanted everyone to go to Heaven, why would it reel of a load of arbitrary laws, regulations, behavioural taboos and social stigmas?

No, but it's awfully hard to get far beyond the first few chapters of Leviticus, and the hardy souls who make it through that almost always flounder in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles.

And the fact is, much of the bible just doesn't make sense without a coherent way of studying it. Just the fact that we bring our modern baggage to an ancient text means we get a lot wrong when we read it without some study help.

But my point is that you don't need to understand the Bible. It's nice to know the history of mathematics, but it's not necessary to be a mathematician.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds like the popular evangelical "once saved always saved" idea, which is not held by the majority of Christians.

Not always saved, but saved for as long as the person is a Christian.

While we are justified by faith alone, and saved by Christ alone, Christianity does not end when you "accept Jesus" (a term that I also have problems with). That is only the beginning. It is possible to fall away, and one will lose faith if they do not stay grounded in the Vine by studying Scripture, partaking of the Sacraments, praying, etc.

This idea of "accept Jesus, now you're good" is very recent.

It seems pretty prevalent in the Jesus' teachings, if you ask me.

 

[Melethiel]

The point of Christianity isn't to "get into Heaven." It's really sad that that's what the popular idea of it has become.

The point of Christianity is reconciliation with God, the restoration of fallen humanity to its true purpose (worship of God and service to one another), and ultimately the physical resurrection of the dead.

Consider: if you've been saved and are getting into Heaven, what else is there to do?

Assumes a single-point "moment of salvation." We have been justified in the sense that we are no longer considered guilty, but we are still being saved in the sense of sanctification.

It seems pretty prevalent in the Jesus' teachings, if you ask me.

Then you haven't read all of them. Also assumes a very English understanding of the word "believe", which has a more passive connotation in English but a more active connotation in Greek.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No offence taken, In fact a church is a book club (the book they read is the bible). Many churches start out as home groups (very similar to book clubs) but usually move to a (church)building once there are too many members to be in a home.

I didn't think churches started that way. I thought some denomination or other acquires a piece of property, then sends clergy to 'set up shop', as it were. Though this probably only works for the more wide-spread and financially secure denominations (e.g., Catholicism).

Think about your largest room in your house. How many people can you fit comfortably in that room? The number isnt very high.

Can I include my subterranean Batcave? It's pretty roomy.

Agreed. It is not hard to start, but it is hard to get through it and understand it. Sure you could look up parts you dont understand on the internet, but that is tedious, time consuming work. Especially if you are at work all day and do not have time to do such things.

Well, like I said, it's superfluous: nice if you can do it, but it isn't necessary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The point of Christianity isn't to "get into Heaven." It's really sad that that's what the popular idea of it has become.

That's the impression I've garnered during my time as a Christian, my talk with Christians, and my readings of the Bible.

The point of Christianity is reconciliation with God, the restoration of fallen humanity to its true purpose (worship of God and service to one another), and ultimately the physical resurrection of the dead.

For which one needs only accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

Assumes a single-point "moment of salvation."

Not necessarily. It may have been an instantaneous 'road to Damascus' type conversion, or a lifetime of experiences, but the point is that, at last, one can be considered to be 'saved'. It is similar to personhood: when does a blastocyte become human? Is there a clear-cut moment, or is it a gradual process? Either way, we can agree that a 34-year-old, say, is fully human.

Then you haven't read all of them.

Unless you count the Mormon addition to the standard Bible, I'm not sure what I've missed.

Also assumes a very English understanding of the word "believe", which has a more passive connotation in English but a more active connotation in Greek.

Perhaps, but the notion he was trying to get across is clear, not least because of how often it was emphasised.

 

[Melethiel]

That's the impression I've garnered during my time as a Christian, my talk with Christians, and my readings of the Bible.

Like I said, it's quite sad that that's what pop Christianity has made it.

For which one needs only accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Like I said, it's quite sad that that's what pop Christianity has made it.

Perhaps, but I was not referring to 'pop' Christianity.

"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Then by what criteria does one garner entrance?

 

[gluadys]

Which is sort of my point: there isn't a way to 'be' Christian, one simply is.

Consider: if you've been saved and are getting into Heaven, what else is there to do?


Indeed: to eschew sin. But such behaviour is not required to get into Heaven. Right?

Yes, it is. If one is claiming to be saved but not living in the way Jesus taught, one is lying to oneself and to others. One cannot be saved without exhibiting the qualities of the saved. Belief that is not expressed in action is not belief.

Why? It makes the most theological sense to me: if an omnipotent being wanted everyone to go to Heaven, why would it reel of a load of arbitrary laws, regulations, behavioural taboos and social stigmas?

Because they are no more arbitrary than gravity.

But my point is that you don't need to understand the Bible.

A Christian does.

 

[gluadys]

Perhaps, but I was not referring to 'pop' Christianity.


Then by what criteria does one garner entrance?

By the grace of God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, it is. If one is claiming to be saved but not living in the way Jesus taught, one is lying to oneself and to others.

I wasn't talking about someone claiming to be saved, but someone who genuinely is saved.

One cannot be saved without exhibiting the qualities of the saved. Belief that is not expressed in action is not belief.

Sure it is. I believe in common descent, but that's never affected my actions.

Because they are no more arbitrary than gravity.

On the contrary, the god of the Bible is omnipotent: they are unnecessary.

A Christian does.

Why?

By the grace of God.

And how does one garner God's grace? From what I've heard, God loves each and every one of us, so it sounds like we're already in his good graces.

 

[Melethiel]

I wasn't talking about someone claiming to be saved, but someone who genuinely is saved.

Christianity does not tie itself into neat scientific categories. Everything is all interconnected. You cannot be saved without exhibiting fruit (actions, prayer, study). (my paraphrase) "If anyone does not produce fruit, they are a dead branch, and will be cut off from the Vine."

Sure it is. I believe in common descent, but that's never affected my actions.

Again, we run into the translation problem here. The modern connotation of the English "believe" is very passive, implying head knowledge. However, the Greek "pisteuo" has a far more active connotation. It implies action on this belief (consider: the same root used in this word forms the roots of such English words like "piston" and "pistol" - a driving force). Moreover, the form in which this action reveals itself is important - Scripture also says "even the demons believe in Him and shudder." This is NOT to say that one can earn God's good graces by being a good person (such is antithetical to Christianity), but that a faith which does not express itself through action (charity, study of the Scripture [which is very central, as it was in Judaism as well, from which Christianity sprung], partaking of the Sacraments, and prayer), then it is no faith at all.

On the contrary, the god of the Bible is omnipotent: they are unnecessary.

Sure, if God chose, he could have snapped his fingers. However, that is not how the covenant is laid out. We may not know why God chose to do things a certain way, but that doesn't give us liberty to disregard because we think we know better.

Why?

The human nature is fickle. Without constant ground in the Scripture, one is apt to go astray.

And how does one garner God's grace? From what I've heard, God loves each and every one of us, so it sounds like we're already in his good graces.

God extends His grace to all, but humans are free to reject it.