There is a major problem with all organised religions. The supposed certainties of their teachings shut off further learning or questioning, even utterly forbidding it in some religions. Islam is a notable example where contradiction can lead to severe censure, even death.

Yet religions are based mostly on hearsay, folklore, often heavily edited or spurious texts and a largely helping of good old mumbo jumbo, reinforced by fearful humans looking for reassurance and something to cling to in an uncertain world. None of them stand up to close scrutiny.

Derren Brown's self confessed trickery would have seen him hailed as a Holy man and miracle worker 2000 years ago, when simple people were more easily fooled. Yet even now he could probably fire up a nice following if he so chose, and who knows where that might lead in the years to come?

 

Jesus was opposed to the religious. Christians are justified not by works or by being learned, but by faith alone. The works follow when a man has moved in to the divine presence; this is an inner experience that cannot be reasoned. It is ineffable. It is joy unspeakable and full of glory. Pray for it, don't rebel against, Paben; it's the greatest gift!

 

Jesus indeed railed against the religious leaders of his time, so why nowadays are his words totally ignored by the clergy? Christian leaders clothe themselves in expensive yet ludicrous finery, conduct meaningless ceremonies with much waving of censors, cover up the iniquities of those who should be setting an example; and some openly express a disbelief in God. Over the centuries the Catholics in particular have made countless lives an utter misery. I don't think there is any spiritual guidance there for me.

 

Agreed. It is why I am a member of an independent baptist church. We are of the reformed tradition (the Reformation was 499 years old yesterday) and our website is here:

http://www.calvaryogmore.co.uk/beliefs.htm

 

I agree with a lot of what you say and in fact I sometimes ask the same questions. It is important to remember to focus on what Jesus taught, not what people might use for their own gains. If people act otherwise in accordance with the teachings of Christ yet proclaim to be doing so in his name it is down to the wisdom of an individual observing not to be taken in by it.

 

Matthew 10:16

 

I would suggest that Christianity is more of a faith than a religion. What marks it out over all others is that salvation is not obtained through any good acts. You cannot buy or earn your way into Heaven. Heaven is a place of purity, perfection, a blameless existence. Sin has no place in it. No matter how good you may try to live we are all with sin. No matter how we make up for it we cannot undo this fact and there is no place for this sin.


The only way to the father is through what has been done for us not by us. What is required is faith and belief of what Christ did.

 

Amen.

 

No offense (no, really) but I looked at your web site/'beliefs' and despite a decent education I immediately ran into some words I had never encountered before. I think an interested enquirer could be sent running for cover by the syntax too. Good luck with it though.

 

I think you mean 'offence', but not to worry. It's not great in the regard you highlight. The pastor (who read Literature for his degree) has someone else do the site and is conscious of its failings. What other words did you struggle with?

 

Ah the irony; despite my 'decent education' I couldn't spell offence without slipping into Americanese. Sorry about that.

"We believe:
- in the inerrant Word of God and submit to its authority;
- in the Triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - co-equal and co-eternal;
- in the historic incarnation, sinless life, substitutionary death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ;
- that we may have an eternal relationship with God through repentance and faith in Christ, which are His gifts to us"

I didn't struggle to understand the highlighted words and clumsy sentence but they stopped me dead in my reading tracks. I suspect others might not risk investigating beyond this first page as it suggests there is heavy going ahead. I am sure your pastor could knock up something more attractive and effective.

 

I'll let him know and thanks for the feedback. You may benefit from listening to some of the sermons on the other page.

 

JT - can I ask what viewpoint your church holds of the teaching of other protestant 'christian' churches?

 

Sure. We would disagree with Weslyan perfectionism; we're too conservative to engage fully with the Charismatic's 'spiritual gifts' (although we wouldn't deny that these gifts are sometimes real); our church is Calvinist rather than Lutheran; she differs from Anglicans in that (as implied by the denominational label) its members are adherents to 'believers baptism' as opposed to 'Christening' or child baptism (though I was Christened and the pastor is an adherent to child baptism for reasons I can discuss in another post if you'd like).

These are just a few examples. What's apparent is that these doctrinal principles are overwhelmingly secondary, we share primary doctrines such as scripture alone, justification by faith alone, the universal priesthood of believers, the Trinity etc. and this unites us under the banner of the reformed tradition.

In a nutshell, my church and I are of the view that a Christian is saved by faith alone (sola fide) and this applies to both Catholics and Protestants. We're ecumenical in principle, but will breakaway (as we did 499 years ago and again in 1966) if we feel Biblical teachings are not being adhered to.

 

Oh the hypocrisy of it

 

Thank you, James, but I did not ask you the questions. I asked Mr. SRSport as I was interested in his blind folk spotting.

Regarding your view, though, I was already aware of it.. You made me aware of that in our previous discussions on the subject on more than one occasion. I understand that according to your viewpoint, every other faith's follower is blind, Christianity is superior over all other known roads to God, and Jesus Christ is the super star. You are aware that we are in disharmony on that, in this free world. My questions were actually to Mr. SRSport.

Anyway.

Good morning to you all Snetters.

Not wishing you all a good morning with the hope for any salvation or to secure my entry into some hell or a heaven from God. Just doing it because I believe you all should have a good morning regardless of my ticket in future getting booked to either of the destinations up there. I've seen both on this earth anyway, and there's more of them to come.

 

I acknowledge my sin. Do you? There's a beautiful paradox within your accusation; a man who accuses another man of hypocrisy must be sure he is particularly forthright otherwise he to is guilty of hypocrisy. As scripture has it: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone and judge not lest you be judged, etc. etc. What you do and the way you do it seems to come from a particularly dark place. I've confessed that Lizzy and my non-marital status is a source of anguish for me, yet you continue to pour scorn. May God be as merciful with you as he has been with me.

 

Morning, Swati.

It's not superior, it's exclusive. There is no other way to the Father except via the Son.

 

 

James, you can still morally hold a spiritual faith without marrying your partner. The marriage of souls between the two of you already exists. I don't know why you feel such an anguish, and how can you call your Christianity a faith when you feel so guilty for not complying with one intitution that your 'faith' supports? Admit it that Christianity is an organised religion.

 

'Superior' and 'exclusive' aren't much different to each other. 'Exclusive' makes it even more discriminatory and devaluating towards other faiths! I will never be in agreement with the 'exclusivity' of the Christianity and its belief. However, I respect your view, if it helps you.

Amen.

 

I don't feel guilty, Christ died so that I'd be absolved of guilt before the Father. When I first became a Christian I asked the pastor whether I should stop sleeping with Lizzy, his reply was no. The potential break-up of a loving, monogamous relationship; one formed before I was saved, would be tragic and serve no purpose. Marriage, as far as Adam and Eve were concerned, did not involve a register, chair backings and a booze-up, it was a coming together of man and women as one flesh. It is contemporary marriage that is the institution in this instance, not discipleship of Jesus.

 

You can only sin if you have fables to live by, which as I do not buy into organised story telling and do not claim to live by any set of rules, nor do I pretend to be something I am not is totally irrelevant.

You claim to live by the teaching of the lord, yet willingly and flagrantly disregard his teachings because you are too weak in your convictions to follow them. Preaching to people, when you are clearly unable to comply with simple teachings of your own is very irksome to me. You have to be able to practise what you preach, and you cant.

Yet you will preach to anyone who will listen about how great and good god is while failing to aknowledge that other religions have just as much of a claim to worshipping the "supposed, real" god as yours. You have no proof (a feeling, or divine interaction, with no proof does not count) and nor do they, so it is very foolish to dismiss other peoples beliefs and scriptures on a feeling, you are actually very close minded for this.

Sometimes life dishes lemons, but I just get on with it, no need for a "god" just hard work and it will all come good in the end.

 

Superior implies that there are other ways, but that they aren't as good. I (and the Bible) say this is errant. There are no other ways. This is clearly discriminatory and devaluing to other faiths, in fact it renders them completely redundant as a means of salvation. This doesn't stop me and my brethren from loving people of other worldviews - I live with an atheist for goodness sake!!

 

Are you married?

 

You justify not marrying Lizzy here^ but you yourself said in your #107 that you acknowledge your 'sin', you have 'confessed' to Lizzy and your non-marital status is a source of 'anguish' to you:

Make up your mind, for Christ's sake, man!

 

No.

I do not feel the need to put a label on things for other peoples approval. We both know we love each other, and our gorgeous new born daughter. She is the only "light", "faith" or what ever way you choose to describe it that I need. God or Hailie Selassi any other ficticous leader is not something I buy into.

And we would never get married in a church etc, nor are either of us christemed or any thing else. And nor will my daughter....

Good things happen even without faith. My "faith" is in myself and my family, I know that what ever happens we will survive it and be made stronger from it. I rely on my hard work, Jess' compassion and love and Felicity's newborn innocence, together we can do and acheive anything. No divine intervention required.

 

Congratulations on the birth of Felicity, I wish you all well.

 

If this lot doesn't send a would-be Christian running for cover then nothing will. It's what one might expect a marketing professional to come up with not a man of God; a collection of doctrine and narrow focus that discourages and excludes all else. Jesus would not be impressed.

I now see why your web site is so daunting and unattractive; are you sure you didn't write it yourself? What happened to the silent contemplation in an empty church, the quiet faith?

 

Hailie Salassi was not ficticous, he was the most Royal, king of kings, ruler of all rulers, king of Judah / Emperor and could trace his Royal blood back to somewhere like king Solomon, (not being precise as I was never a follower) But he's not to be confused with the fairies.

Just saying