What do you classify yourself as and what do you define that as?

[knapplc]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

About the same as I feel about teaching them about Santa Claus.

[Husker_x]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

About the same as I feel about teaching them about Santa Claus.

 

People tend to stop believing in Santa. But the belief in hell, and the psychological torture it can cause––well that tends to linger.

[knapplc]

People tend to stop believing in Santa. But the belief in hell, and the psychological torture it can cause––well that tends to linger.

 

I'm sure that depends on the person. I certainly don't have lingering psychological torture from a belief in hell. I can't think of a single Christian I know who really focused on it. I'm sure some do, but I have no idea what the percentages are. Near as I can tell, hell at any church I ever attended was given about as much focus as Santa's list of who's naughty or nice, and that we should "be good, for goodness' sake!"

 

I just don't have any animosity towards Christians or the Christian establishment that I was a Christian all those years. I think they were beneficial in making me who I am today.

[Judoka]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion.

I think it may have something to do with the type of instructors/administrators at the school, The Sisterhood. The things they did were purely psychological and if that indicative of Catholic grade schools throughout the U.S.A., it wouldn't surprise me if we were/are more prone to being anti-religion.

[robsker]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

[robsker]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

[Husker_x]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

[robsker]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

 

Of course the presupposition that is tacitly utilized here is that the Bible is inspired (God authored the content in and through human instruments), that the content is thereby inerrant, and thus authoritative as truth in all that it declares. To defend that presupposition with concrete and rational data that is very compelling is something that has been done over and over again for over a millennium. There are hundreds (literally) of rational reasons to assert the veracity of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say that there are not those who disagree with the concept. Yet... when I assess the data, the overwhelming weight of evidence sides with an authoritative and inerrant Bible that is authored in the pre-eminent sense by God through human agents.

[Husker_x]

I wonder if former Catholics are more prone to be anti-religion. I was raised Lutheran and I have zero angst towards my former faith. In fact, I think they do the world a service, and I hope they stick around a long time. I see a lot of former Catholics who are very strongly anti-religion, while those protestants I know who dropped their faith seem to view it as mostly a non-issue. Is that just my anecdotal experience, or have others noticed this as well?

 

The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world. It's not a lot different purely as an organization than a football team. The problem comes when you have a person in authority who misuses that authority for nefarious purposes. If a football coach does this, it's a shame and we all think poorly of him, but it pretty much ends there, because his gig is to coach football. If a pastor/priest does something bad to a person, it seems like so much greater a betrayal, because they're in a position whose sole purpose is to help/comfort/support/teach people. Abuse is the polar opposite of what a priest is supposed to be, which is why I feel people take it so much harder when a pastor/priest mucks up their lives.

 

I was a protestant.

 

Here's a question, though. How would you feel if you were to find out that a priest or pastor or rabbi was teaching your daughter that Hell is a real place and that she will go there if she does not accept authority or dogma X, Y, or Z?

 

I would instruct my daughter to read the Bible where she would then realize that her priest or pastor or rabbi was correct about the existence of hell but incorrect about the rest. The Scriptures define truth... not the opinions of men.

 

Great question --- and kind of cool to talk of this stuff in this context.

 

Except the scriptures were written by men, compiled by men, and transmitted by men. A little girl now ends up taking your word for it that a super galactic entity had a book written and it is true, and that it represents reality. Never mind the unending contradiction of interpretation that essentially defines Christianity (or at the very least half of it)––what she reads and interprets, that is the truth. Or is it just man's opinion of the truth?

 

Of course the presupposition that is tacitly utilized here is that the Bible is inspired (God authored the content in and through human instruments), that the content is thereby inerrant, and thus authoritative as truth in all that it declares. To defend that presupposition with concrete and rational data that is very compelling is something that has been done over and over again for over a millennium. There are hundreds (literally) of rational reasons to assert the veracity of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say that there are not those who disagree with the concept. Yet... when I assess the data, the overwhelming weight of evidence sides with an authoritative and inerrant Bible that is authored in the pre-eminent sense by God through human agents.

 

Care to give some examples?

[knapplc]

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

 

The point of a church is not to sit in a pew on Sunday singing hymns preparing for the afterlife. If that's what you're teaching your congregation you're giving them half a loaf. Your role as a pastor is to model Christ to your congregation, giving them a living example of their goal, which is to model Christ to the world.

 

Stop me when I'm wrong here.

 

The model Christ gave you was not one of sitting around waiting for the afterlife, it was a model of direct contact with those most in need. Christ toured the slums of Palestine healing the sick, teaching the uneducated, working miracle after miracle, providing lesson after lesson. He did not sit on his hands, in one spot, basking in His righteousness.

 

Christ's whole purpose was to change the world - to justify it and make it right with God. That is what you should be teaching your congregation, not some mantra about worship. Worship takes many forms, the least productive of which is to sit in a pew on Sunday. Worship can take the form of building a house for a poor family, gathering coats for the city mission, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or simply talking to a friend in need. These are the actions that naturally spring forth from a Christ-centered life, not a means to justification. I am NOT advocating righteousness through works; rather, I am stating that your faith should naturally produce such works. These actions are not idolatrous in the least. If they were, Christ himself would be an idolator.

 

Again, stop me when I've said something not in keeping with sound Christian doctrine.

 

So, you have (hopefully) a congregation intent on emulating Christ. Where are they going to do this? Heaven? Eventually, but not now. Now they're here, on Earth. Here on Earth is where you are doing your ministry, not in Heaven. Worry about Heaven when you get there. While you're here, do what Christ did.

 

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature (his flesh, from the flesh) will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

[Landlord]

I am a Christian --- and the pastor of a church.

 

There are many things to say... but one stands out. It is from Knapplc --who wrote that "The stated purpose of organized religion is to do good in the world." This is a perspective that is widely held and one which is perpetuated by many a church --- including many, if not most Christian churches. That you stated this Knapp is not a reflection upon you... it is a reflection upon churches.

 

You see, at least from a Biblical Christian perspective, the stated purpose of the church is NOT to do good in the world. Such a perspective is very man-centered and is idolatrous... whereby man sets up man as his own idol. The purpose of Biblical Christian churches is to worship God and to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. Biblical churches exist for men and women to stand in awe of the omnipotent God of the universe and revere His name, sing His praises and declare of His infinite greatness. Christianity is about God... not about men in general, or Christians in particular. Now... as we gather to praise Him on Sundays --- and as we live our lives throughout the week --- we are called to place as preeminent those things that center upon Him. Now Christ calls us to express our love for Him by serving others. So... in serving others in God's power, by His grace, God... through us... blesses the world. But the Biblical Christian religion is not about changing the world. It is not about the world at all (in any direct sense) nor is it about the creation --- it is about the Creator. Biblical Christianity is not the means towards a man-centered ends --- the betterment of the temporal world. Rather, Christianity exists to proclaim the Glory of God through Christ. The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

My intentions with this post are not to offend anyone or disagree with anyone. Rather... the American Christian church of this generation (and really since about the late 1880's) has largely missed the point and given the entirely wrong message to the masses --- the church does not exist for the world --- it is not about man and how men are impacted. It is about God.

 

And several have rightly posted that Christians are no more ethical than are non-Christians --- and they are absolutely correct. No moral superiority here... Christians are sinners w/o any ability in themselves for anything but sin. That is... the nature of all of us. In and of ourselves, we are all the same. But then there is grace....

 

The point of a church is not to sit in a pew on Sunday singing hymns preparing for the afterlife. If that's what you're teaching your congregation you're giving them half a loaf. Your role as a pastor is to model Christ to your congregation, giving them a living example of their goal, which is to model Christ to the world.

 

Stop me when I'm wrong here.

 

The model Christ gave you was not one of sitting around waiting for the afterlife, it was a model of direct contact with those most in need. Christ toured the slums of Palestine healing the sick, teaching the uneducated, working miracle after miracle, providing lesson after lesson. He did not sit on his hands, in one spot, basking in His righteousness.

 

Christ's whole purpose was to change the world - to justify it and make it right with God. That is what you should be teaching your congregation, not some mantra about worship. Worship takes many forms, the least productive of which is to sit in a pew on Sunday. Worship can take the form of building a house for a poor family, gathering coats for the city mission, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or simply talking to a friend in need. These are the actions that naturally spring forth from a Christ-centered life, not a means to justification. I am NOT advocating righteousness through works; rather, I am stating that your faith should naturally produce such works. These actions are not idolatrous in the least. If they were, Christ himself would be an idolator.

 

Again, stop me when I've said something not in keeping with sound Christian doctrine.

 

So, you have (hopefully) a congregation intent on emulating Christ. Where are they going to do this? Heaven? Eventually, but not now. Now they're here, on Earth. Here on Earth is where you are doing your ministry, not in Heaven. Worry about Heaven when you get there. While you're here, do what Christ did.

 

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature (his flesh, from the flesh) will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

 

 

I don't feel like you are disagreeing with what robsker said. The key part of his statement was, to me:

 

The medium through which such takes place is the world, and the world is effected... but the effect is a secondary effect and not the purpose nor the focal point.

 

True, saving faith in Jesus results in spiritual rebirthing, which results in the Holy Spirit guiding you towards Christ which naturally is also towards service and love. Christians aren't defined by their actions or fruits, as if it were a requirement, but they (we) are known by our fruit, as if it is an unavoidable result.

[muzicman0]

I am a Christian.

 

I get so fed up with people claiming that because so and so did such and such, the church is a horrible place, or Christians are just as bad as everyone else. I'm not saying that things don't happen, or that people haven't done evil in God's name...but the bottom line is that in the end, you are only responsible for YOUR actions. If you want to reject God, that is your choice, but stop blaming others. You made the choice, and when it comes time to be held accountable for your decisions, it will be 100% based on you, not someone somewhere that did something...no matter how often it happened.

 

I go to church every week, and minister in a couple different churches where I live. The VAST majority of Christians I meet are great people, who honestly want to live a life pleasing to God.

 

mm0

[Nebula]

I am a Christian.

 

I get so fed up with people claiming that because so and so did such and such, the church is a horrible place, or Christians are just as bad as everyone else. I'm not saying that things don't happen, or that people haven't done evil in God's name...but the bottom line is that in the end, you are only responsible for YOUR actions. If you want to reject God, that is your choice, but stop blaming others. You made the choice, and when it comes time to be held accountable for your decisions, it will be 100% based on you, not someone somewhere that did something...no matter how often it happened.

 

I go to church every week, and minister in a couple different churches where I live. The VAST majority of Christians I meet are great people, who honestly want to live a life pleasing to God.

 

mm0

 

I scoff at that.

[Husker_x]

I am a Christian.

 

I get so fed up with people claiming that because so and so did such and such, the church is a horrible place, or Christians are just as bad as everyone else. I'm not saying that things don't happen, or that people haven't done evil in God's name...but the bottom line is that in the end, you are only responsible for YOUR actions. If you want to reject God, that is your choice, but stop blaming others. You made the choice, and when it comes time to be held accountable for your decisions, it will be 100% based on you, not someone somewhere that did something...no matter how often it happened.

 

I go to church every week, and minister in a couple different churches where I live. The VAST majority of Christians I meet are great people, who honestly want to live a life pleasing to God.

 

mm0

 

I scoff at that.

 

I believe that makes you a scoffer. Which means the end is near (I Pet. 3:3-4).

 

You've doomed us all.

[NUance]

I am a Christian.

 

I get so fed up with people claiming that because so and so did such and such, the church is a horrible place, or Christians are just as bad as everyone else. I'm not saying that things don't happen, or that people haven't done evil in God's name...but the bottom line is that in the end, you are only responsible for YOUR actions. If you want to reject God, that is your choice, but stop blaming others. You made the choice, and when it comes time to be held accountable for your decisions, it will be 100% based on you, not someone somewhere that did something...no matter how often it happened.

 

I go to church every week, and minister in a couple different churches where I live. The VAST majority of Christians I meet are great people, who honestly want to live a life pleasing to God.

 

mm0

 

I scoff at that.

Naw, muzicman0 makes a good point. The last sentence is especially true. From my experience, anyway.