Spirituality vs. Christianity

Charis

Recently I was told that people do not view Christians as spiritual. I was confused because I view Christianity as highly spiritual and didn't think that spirituality could be separated from being a Christian. I realize that there are many different forms of spirituality outside of Christianity but I am curious what people interested in either spirituality or Christianity think about that comment. Not sure which forum is better suited for this question.

Dades

I can't think why Christianity would be separated here. Don't certain branches have a "Holy Spirit" as part of the Trinity?

Unless they are taking "spirituality" to be a very personal thing, where you have defined your own - rather than followed the doctrines of a major religion.

I would say whether you are spiritual or not depends on a person, rather than their supposed religion.

Charis

Yes, most branches have the "Holy Spirit." Thanks for your thoughts I agree with being spiritual depending on the individual, nice to know what someone else thinks.

hairyheretic

I would define spirituality being your connection with whatever you believe in, and religion as being all the man made trappings that grow up around a belief.

the real ramon

yeah... I'd like to echo hairyheretic on this... you can be religious without being spiritual and spiritual without being religious or both or neither. For me, being spiritual is much more important than being religious. I've come accross many very religious Catholics and one Presbyterian, and an Asatruar aswell who were all very religious and thought they were 'good' as they were so religious, but they were not what I would call spiritual, but rather more angry and self-righteous, and quite nasty when crossed.

It's hard to be spiritual in this world, and I don't know if it's something you can try to be, or more something you allow come over you, but I think the world could do with more of it. Oh, and I have met many spiritual Christians aswedll as those from other paths.

solas

religions are merely the languages whih give value to the meaning of various spiritual beliefs or philosophies. Granted, often times the language isn't spoken very well but I consider christianity to be highly spiritual also.

stevenmu

I think many people might see 'spirituality' as something internal to one's self, the development of your own person or exploration of your own soul. Christianity can often seem to be very external to your self. It seems to be more about unsderstanding and worshipping something almost completely seperate from yourself. I don't think that's a very fair portrayel of christianity, but it can seem like that at times, even to many Christians themselves. I think this could partly be because of some of the rituals of Christianity which often require an ordained priest, and people often focus more on these than on the more personal ones. Mainly I think it's to do with the way belief in Christianity is passed down, the obvious example to most of us here would be the old style 'god fearing' Catholocism we had in Ireland, where we were more or less told to love God, worship him, go to mass, beg forgiveness for our sins, or else ....

Dagon

This is an interesting question. There are people who have read and studied a particular religion, and have become experts in ths field. But they still go through life without any love. This is the simple reason why some see such people as "non-spiritual". To be spiritual is to have discovered love (not in a romantic or a sexual sense, but in living well).

I was confused because I view Christianity as highly spiritual and didn't think that spirituality could be separated from being a Christian.

What is spiritual? We throw the word around so much without looking at it. And what is separation? Is it possible to be living in this world, and to be completely separated from it - living in your own little box, with your own fears and hatreds based on past experience? Similarly, is it possible to know all the various rites and rituals that take place in a Christian faith, and still be completely separate from God, from love? Ask yourself and find out, look around you.

While I think it's possible for someone who belongs to a particular organised religion like Christianity to have found this love, this spirituality, to some extent; I think it is also possible to be a Christian and be totally devoid of love, to be very far apart from the sacred. Many people involved in Christianity have built up a lot of barriers between themselves and God, and have complicated things so much, with so many instructions and books and ideas and comcepts... that it is impossible to find out what is sacred.

Perhaps this is why some people choose to view Christianity as separate from spirituality. But remember, they are only words. Spirituality is misused just as much as anything else.

Here is an interesting answer to the question of "the religious man" :
"What is the state of the mind that says, "I do not know whether there is God, whether there is love," that is, when there is no response of memory?

So the mind that is capable of saying, "I do not know," is in the only state in which anything can be discovered. But the man who says, "I know," the man who has studied infinitely the varieties of human experience and whose mind is burdened with information, with encyclopedic knowledge, can he ever experience something which is not to be accumulated? He will find it extremely hard. When the mind totally puts aside all the knowledge that it has acquired, when for it there are no Buddhas, no Christs, no Masters, no teachers, no religions, no quotations; when the mind is completely alone, uncontaminated, which means that the movement of the known has come to an end—it is only then that there is a possibility of a tremendous revolution, a fundamental change. ...The religious man is he who does not belong to any religion, to any nation, to any race, who is inwardly completely alone, in a state of not-knowing, and for him the blessing of the sacred comes into being."
"The Religious Man" - The Book of Life - Krishnamurti

Excelsior

Christian spirituality is focused outside of the Self and on to an Other. As such, it is very different from various New Age spiritualities.

However, a Christian who is without love at all can't be a Christian, since becoming a Christian involves acknowledging that God loves you. I think it unwise to deem anyone as "unspiritual" because they have sinned against you. We all make mistakes and we all make subjective assessments of people. But a Christian fully committed to Jesus would be someone who is reflective and thoughtful and sensitive to the world around them- whatever way you describe Spirituality, it should apply to a passionate Christian.

Dagon

Excelsior wrote:

a Christian who is without love at all can't be a Christian, since becoming a Christian involves acknowledging that God loves you.

Yes, but what does it mean to "become" a Christian? Does it mean that you have acknowledged that God loves you at the intellectual level? That you have said it to some holy leader, and expressed it at the verbal level? Or is it in living, in relationship with others, in everyday activities?

This is the problem. You see, for many of us, the whole acceptance of God - or our relationship to our spirituality - takes place at the surface level of the mind. If one goes deeper, you will see it takes a little more to truly go into it, to truly accept that God loves you.

But a Christian fully committed to Jesus would be someone who is reflective and thoughtful and sensitive to the world around them- whatever way you describe Spirituality, it should apply to a passionate Christian.

Absolutely.

Excelsior

Dagon wrote:

Yes, but what does it mean to "become" a Christian? Does it mean that you have acknowledged that God loves you at the intellectual level? That you have said it to some holy leader, and expressed it at the verbal level? Or is it in living, in relationship with others, in everyday activities?

To become a Christian is to enter into a commitment to place Jesus Christ and his teachings, the Bible, at the centre of your life. It is much more than intellectual assent to the philosophical coherency of the Christian story. Flowing from this, one would expect to join a community of believers in a church to worship, pray, learn and serve together. One would structure their finances to permit charitable giving. One would straighten out their personal relationships so that they seek to no longer manipulate and exploit others. One would dedicate yourself to private devotions as your personality dictates- prayer, regular study of the Bible and reflection on God's grace. All of these things should be part of "becoming" a Christian.

A Christian life well lives should always be "becoming", as it is at heart a relationship and relationships are organic things.

This is the problem. You see, for many of us, the whole acceptance of God - or our relationship to our spirituality - takes place at the surface level of the mind. If one goes deeper, you will see it takes a little more to truly go into it, to truly accept that God loves you.

Woah. So true. This idea, that there is a God and he is passionately seeking you is the most potent force of transformation in existence. Have you read "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancy Dagon?

Dagon

Excelsior wrote:

One would straighten out their personal relationships so that they seek to no longer manipulate and exploit others.

Yes, that is the meaning of it. There is so much more to be done in this area, this ballpark. The energy spent studying books and going through rituals could be spent even more wisely by connecting with god more and more, and by being more compassionate, by spreading more love, endlessly.

This idea, that there is a God and he is passionately seeking you is the most potent force of transformation in existence. Have you read "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Philip Yancy Dagon?

I haven't read it, but I was responding to your previous quote about accepting that God loves you. I'm not thinking of God as a definite individual thing, because again this would be a product of my mind, my creation. It is really the silence, the spaces between the thoughts, the movement of life, in love, in something that cannot be produced by the mind. The mind is a barrier to god.

joseph dawton

I believe it really doesn't matter what religion you follow - to God it's like so many different brands of breakfast cereal, the outside appearance is different but the inside is made of the same stuff!

Pursuit of the spiritual ideals at the core of each religion is what counts, not going to mass, praying towards mecca, not eating pork or whatever strange doctrines we follow. Love is the universal message and the energy that binds us to God and all creation. Learning to live rather than imitate the message within the bible, koran, dharmapada etc is what we are meant to do, that is the path to happiness, enlightenment and God.

http://www.electricpublications.com

Charis

I do believe in following Jesus and what he said in Matthew 22:37-40, love God and love your neighbor. I suppose what lacks so often in many, "Christians" is that their spirituality is simply going to mass/church, and saying a few prayers. Somewhere we miss, myself included, the holistic aspects of Christianity. I have recently realized that there were some areas were I was not fully practicing and applying my beliefs. I agree for a Christian that love is the overwhelming principal that guides us in our spiritual pursuit to follow Christ. I wonder though, does one's spirituality affect every aspect of their life or just the spiritual parts(if there is a difference), regardless of one's faith? Or, should one's spirituality affect all aspects of life if it is genuine?

Stark

Charis wrote:

Or, should one's spirituality affect all aspects of life if it is genuine?

It should affect all aspects of life if it's genuine. Or at least how you interact with people. It doesn't have to affect how you pour your breakfast cereal in the morning.

tj-music.com

I don´t like the heading "Spirituality vs.Christianity" although I know it is not meant as something that necessarily clashes with each other.

I consider myself very spiritual and I communicate with fairy creatures and I guess I was an elementary spirit who chose to come back as a human being even though that is only my background and my beliefs.

I guess what makes "Christianity" so problematic nowadays is the fact that there is a lot of negativity and judgement stated by people like the pope who speaks out against gay people or the catholic church who just recently attacked the art of "Reiki" in a paper, while relaxation techniques are being used for thousands of years for the well being of people and should be regarded as a means of help.

Energy healing is as unvisible and intangible as any God that can´t be seen but experienced.

If they would only shut and be more open, less judgmental and less stiff, it would help the overall situation very much.

Maybe it is more a church/anti-church thing nowadays.

Surely, God doesn´t need me to be in a church in order to pray and be close to him.

It is a neverending story and there were more wars over religion than about anything else.

Charis

tj-music.com wrote:

Maybe it is more a church/anti-church thing nowadays.

Surely, God doesn´t need me to be in a church in order to pray and be close to him.

It is a neverending story and there were more wars over religion than about anything else.

Sad isn't it! To think that so many things were fought in the name of "God" and so many people hurt and killed. I would agree that God does not need me to be in Church to pray and be close with Him. Honestly I think some of my closest experiences with God have on my own outside, praying. I suppose after Christianity became the accepted view that christian spirituality became limited to a place. Your other point would make a good thread church/anti-church...hmmm.

the real ramon

Dagon wrote:

. It is really the silence, the spaces between the thoughts, the movement of life, in love, in something that cannot be produced by the mind. The mind is a barrier to god.

Yep, the mind is definitely a barrier to spirituality, no matter which path you follow. I see in my minds eye a Goddess and a God, both my mind's eye has a very confused image of God, which gets in the way, but it's when I don't think and just 'be' that I really appreciate this life and really feel something, the love that comes after the initial buzz-love maybe, a contentment.

joseph dawton

The idea of one spirituality being better than another is pretty silly, if the spiritual path is genuine i.e. not some crazy cult designed to manipulate people then it shouldn't matter.

Unfortunately people like to think they have the right answer and everyone else not in their club is wrong. It's sad that most people have little appreciation or tolerance for different ways.

The big problem with orthodox Christianity that may make it appear 'unspiritual' is that it is really a hybrid of Judasim, Mithrasism, Paganism and Jesus's teachings. It evolved over a number of centuries and reached more or less the form we all know around 700ad. As a result of the Roman 'takeover' of Christianity by Constantine the values of love and acceptance which were so important to Jesus have been replaced by organisational control, dogma and intolerance.

It doesn't mean that Christianity is no good, just that the form practicised by the major Christian churches is far removed from what Jesus's original followers believed and practised.

http://www.electricpublications.com

Excelsior

joseph dawton wrote:

The big problem with orthodox Christianity that may make it appear 'unspiritual' is that it is really a hybrid of Judasim, Mithrasism, Paganism and Jesus's teachings. It evolved over a number of centuries and reached more or less the form we all know around 700ad. As a result of the Roman 'takeover' of Christianity by Constantine the values of love and acceptance which were so important to Jesus have been replaced by organisational control, dogma and intolerance.

It doesn't mean that Christianity is no good, just that the form practicised by the major Christian churches is far removed from what Jesus's original followers believed and practised.

Can you cite some evidence for this? What part of the New Testament which was finished within 60 years of Jesus is perverted? Can you back up even a word of this? How do you explain Orthodox Christianity which keeps alive the spirit of the age of the ecumenical councils before the Roman Catholic church as we know it today even existed?

joseph dawton

Ok for starters in 325 Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church, from that point on control was exercised over the fragmented and diverse Christian churches (which had in the past existed in secret due to the Roman ban on Christianity).

Around this time a rewrite of Christianity took place incorporating elements of other religions. Jesus was defined as the literal Son of God, Mary was raised to the status of a semi-deity (and a virgin). The gospels were heavily edited at this time and reduced to the 4 we currently have (originaly written 60-200AD), there is some 40 or more items of genuine apocrypha (sometimes called pseudigrapha to discredit it).

The Celtic Church, Cathars, Manichians and all Gnostic sects were either forcibly absorbed or exterminated from the early 600s as an attempt to eliminate divergent beliefs and unify the Church. The Roman Church without any authority from Jesus or God decided that their leader would have ultimate control over doctrine with the power to condemn any other religion or alternative versions of Christianity. In the early days there was no Pope, certainly St. Peter was not a Pope (a RC invention) infact the main leaders of the early Church were St. James (Jesus' brother) and St. Paul. The Roman Church had it's own army until the 1800s and frequently went to war against what it considers rogue states.

The Catholic Church is responsible for countless murders of 'heretics' during the inquisition and also the murder or forced conversion of peoples throughout the 'New World'.

Concepts such as original sin, transubstantiation, mortal sin, confession, indulgences etc are all inventions of the Catholic Church and have no basis in the teachings of Jesus.

The Catholic Church exists solely to exert control over the masses, it is not the instrument of God or Jesus, I believe Jesus would be horrified if he were to return to see what evil they have perpetrated in his name.

I have no beef with Jesus or his teachings or that of any of the prophets), I am just appalled by the subversion of his teachings as a means of political and religious control. All of what I have said is common knowledge amongst enquiring minds and well documented in any unbiased history of Christianity, see for yourself.

The Egyptian Coptic church is by all accounts as close to early Christianity as we can get, it was always very small and also being in Africa was totally ignored by the Catholic Church and hence survives to the present day largely unaltered.

I hope this is sufficient!

http://www.electricpublications.com

the real ramon

joseph dawton wrote:

Ok for starters in 325 Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church, from that point on control was exercised over the fragmented and diverse Christian churches (which had in the past existed in secret due to the Roman ban on Christianity).

Around this time a rewrite of Christianity took place incorporating elements of other religions. Jesus was defined as the literal Son of God, Mary was raised to the status of a semi-deity (and a virgin). The gospels were heavily edited at this time and reduced to the 4 we currently have (originaly written 60-200AD), there is some 40 or more items of genuine apocrypha (sometimes called pseudigrapha to discredit it).

The Celtic Church, Cathars, Manichians and all Gnostic sects were either forcibly absorbed or exterminated from the early 600s as an attempt to eliminate divergent beliefs and unify the Church. The Roman Church without any authority from Jesus or God decided that their leader would have ultimate control over doctrine with the power to condemn any other religion or alternative versions of Christianity. In the early days there was no Pope, certainly St. Peter was not a Pope (a RC invention) infact the main leaders of the early Church were St. James (Jesus' brother) and St. Paul. The Roman Church had it's own army until the 1800s and frequently went to war against what it considers rogue states.

The Catholic Church is responsible for countless murders of 'heretics' during the inquisition and also the murder or forced conversion of peoples throughout the 'New World'.

Concepts such as original sin, transubstantiation, mortal sin, confession, indulgences etc are all inventions of the Catholic Church and have no basis in the teachings of Jesus.

The Catholic Church exists solely to exert control over the masses, it is not the instrument of God or Jesus, I believe Jesus would be horrified if he were to return to see what evil they have perpetrated in his name.

I have no beef with Jesus or his teachings or that of any of the prophets), I am just appalled by the subversion of his teachings as a means of political and religious control. All of what I have said is common knowledge amongst enquiring minds and well documented in any unbiased history of Christianity, see for yourself.

The Egyptian Coptic church is by all accounts as close to early Christianity as we can get, it was always very small and also being in Africa was totally ignored by the Catholic Church and hence survives to the present day largely unaltered.

I hope this is sufficient!

http://www.electricpublications.com

There is a fair bit to take in here, it adds a good bit of fact to what i have thought for some time now, and definitely I am not a Roman catholic even though it was the religion I was brought up in.

But even though all this may be true religions evolve all the time and whats suitable for a person is well... suitable for that particular person. Many religions have done bad in the past, some are doing in the present (by my reckoning anyway, whatever others think is good or bad), but RC is as valid a belief and branch of Christianity as any other, though you may disagree with them fundamentally as I do with RC and Evangelicalism (and also with certain paths of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Paganism), arguements as to which religion is right or wrong are pointless, as they all have the same chances of being right (i.e between slim and none). What suits people is what suits people.

PS

Some people think Paul did as much damage to Christianity as Constantine, but that's a separate debate

joseph dawton

Yes I agree, there is no correct religion as they are all corruptions of the word of God. You can argue that some are worse than others, even so I would not condemn Catholics as wrong, lost or unchristian, it's the organisation I can't stand, all that schpeel was just to demonstrate my point that Catholicism has, to put it politely, moved somewhat from its origin. Anyway the only correct path is that which leads to the source of it all - God itself and no-one can teach you how to find your way, there only your own heart.

http://www.electricpublications.com

the real ramon

joseph dawton wrote:

I would not condemn Catholics as wrong, lost or unchristian, it's the organisation I can't stand, all that schpeel was just to demonstrate my point that Catholicism has, to put it politely, moved somewhat from its origin.

We're on the same wavelength then (except maybe about God - Im unsure about the existence of one except in our own minds, so I guess you can still find your way there!)

The organisation itself - if it doesn't shake itself up it will destroy Catholicism, which would be a pity as RC means a lot to me mum.

Dagon

"Anyway the only correct path is that which leads to the source of it all - God itself and no-one can teach you how to find your way, there only your own heart."

Simple as.

Why go to the middle-man when you can go straight to God?

Excelsior

joseph dawton wrote:

Ok for starters in 325 Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church, from that point on control was exercised over the fragmented and diverse Christian churches (which had in the past existed in secret due to the Roman ban on Christianity).

But what about the ecumenical councils that had taken place before and continued for centuries after Constantine until the Orthodox Schism of the 700s?

j dawson wrote:

Around this time a rewrite of Christianity took place incorporating elements of other religions. Jesus was defined as the literal Son of God, Mary was raised to the status of a semi-deity (and a virgin). The gospels were heavily edited at this time and reduced to the 4 we currently have (originaly written 60-200AD), there is some 40 or more items of genuine apocrypha (sometimes called pseudigrapha to discredit it).

The earliest fragment of John that I have personally actually seen is 125AD. John is the last Gospel. How can you explain that to me if it wasn't finished until 200AD? How can you explain the evidence, particularly in the writings of Polycarp, that that final Gospel was actually written in the 90s? We have existing letters between church leaders in the 170s that discuss how only 4 Gospels should be accepted. From 170 on, there is no time when the number rises or falls. The whole New Testament canon is slightly less stable (Hebrews didn't go down so well in Rome as it did in Smyrna, for example) but it settles at 27 very quickly too. How do you factor that into your equation?

Jesus was defined as the risen Son of God is the earliest New Testament fragment we have, a scrap of the first Pauline letter to Thessalonica, 15 years after Jesus died. From church letters there is an excellent argument to be made that Paul had first written this 8 years after Easter 1. Jesus was defined by all the early churches from the earliest records we have as the risen Son of God.

Mary was not considered a perpetual virgin until the middle 20th Century and then only by the Roman Catholic Church. She has never occupied a semi-deity position (to this day, even in Rome) in any Christian church.

The extra-canonical Gospels are not Christian texts. All of them are later, unread in churches and Gnostic in doctrine.

j dawson wrote:

The Celtic Church, Cathars, Manichians and all Gnostic sects were either forcibly absorbed or exterminated from the early 600s as an attempt to eliminate divergent beliefs and unify the Church. The Roman Church without any authority from Jesus or God decided that their leader would have ultimate control over doctrine with the power to condemn any other religion or alternative versions of Christianity. In the early days there was no Pope, certainly St. Peter was not a Pope (a RC invention) infact the main leaders of the early Church were St. James (Jesus' brother) and St. Paul. The Roman Church had it's own army until the 1800s and frequently went to war against what it considers rogue states.

Although the disgusting doctrinal and political excesses of the Roman bishop in the middle ages are well documented, you have bent the truth here. The sects you list were not an alternative expression of Christianity, like say modern day Methodists or Baptists. They were non Christian sects advocating entirely different teachings. Gnosticism is not Christianity. This battle didn't begin from the early 600s. Irenaeus' Against Heresies is a good place to begin if you would like to actually see how coherent, confident and consistent even the 2nd Century Christian witness was in the face of interlopers disguised as sheep and hungry as wolves to eat what the Christians held to be true.

j dawson wrote:

The Catholic Church is responsible for countless murders of 'heretics' during the inquisition and also the murder or forced conversion of peoples throughout the 'New World'.

And I agree that this is abomination. I stand in the line of the Reformers who oppose this. But the 1500s are far removed from early Christianity and there is no way you can reflect the sins of the sons back onto the fathers.

j dawson wrote:

Concepts such as original sin, transubstantiation, mortal sin, confession, indulgences etc are all inventions of the Catholic Church and have no basis in the teachings of Jesus.

Original sin seems to me to be fairly evident in the teachings of Jesus:
"Why do you call me good? No one but God is good" and Paul: "All have fallen short of the law"

j dawson wrote:

The Catholic Church exists solely to exert control over the masses, it is not the instrument of God or Jesus, I believe Jesus would be horrified if he were to return to see what evil they have perpetrated in his name.

Well I think you have some issues you are going to have to deal with. The way to deal with Jesus' imminent disapproval is not to rewrite him as some modern day religious guru but to return to what he has revealed to us in the New Testament.

j dawson wrote:

I have no beef with Jesus or his teachings or that of any of the prophets), I am just appalled by the subversion of his teachings as a means of political and religious control. All of what I have said is common knowledge amongst enquiring minds and well documented in any unbiased history of Christianity, see for yourself.

But you redefine his teachings to make sure you have no beef with him! You say "well I don't like that so it must be a later addition" which is an appalling act of intellectual dishonesty. I am disgusted by the record of Christians and churches (all of them) and their evil oppression of people but I find solace and hope in the person of Jesus.

I have seen for myself. In fairness, I know my way around the Bible and the classics and the early Fathers. I think it is a strange unbias of yours that can end with the claim that NOTHING good can come from a billion strong church.

j dawson wrote:

The Egyptian Coptic church is by all accounts as close to early Christianity as we can get, it was always very small and also being in Africa was totally ignored by the Catholic Church and hence survives to the present day largely unaltered.

And crucially, they are focused on the divinity and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and his Good News.

j dawson wrote:

I hope this is sufficient!

Thank you, it was very stimulating. I hope you find something to chew over in my response.

joseph dawton

Interesting...

well as for St. Paul (Sual of Tarsus) he was roman tax collector and I'm not so sure if I'm too keen on him, A N Wilson's book on St Paul might be an interesting read.

Anyway I think you missed the point, you obviously have looked into Chridtian history extensively however the point is that the Catholic Church has strayed from Jesus's teachings in it's practice. Jesus himself said 'if 2 or 3 are gathered in my name' etc surely we don't need to be ordered about, the 4 gospels and other texts (e.g. gospel of St. Thomas) are all we really need in order to understand Jesus' teachings.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with Christianity, it is the Churches that I don't like. The same applies to Islam and Judaism as far as I am concertned - it is a sad fact of life that man often changes and distorts things to suit his own ends.

http://www.electripublications.com

Excelsior

joseph dawton wrote:

Interesting...

well as for St. Paul (Sual of Tarsus) he was roman tax collector and I'm not so sure if I'm too keen on him, A N Wilson's book on St Paul might be an interesting read.

Paul wasn't a tax collector. He was in fact probably a zealot and certainly a pharisee. He was a student under the High Priest of the 2nd Temple Gamaliel and served his life, famously, as a travelling tent maker. His writing strongly suggests that if he wasn't a zealot he certainly sympathised with these religious radicals who could be (unfairly) compared to Islamofascists. I am unaware of any reason to think him a tax collector.

I have read Wilson's shambolic bits and pieces gathered from here and there and I can assure that NT Wright's "What Saint Paul Really Said" is a more than adequate rebuttal.

j dawson wrote:

Anyway I think you missed the point, you obviously have looked into Chridtian history extensively however the point is that the Catholic Church has strayed from Jesus's teachings in it's practice. Jesus himself said 'if 2 or 3 are gathered in my name' etc surely we don't need to be ordered about, the 4 gospels and other texts (e.g. gospel of St. Thomas) are all we really need in order to understand Jesus' teachings.

But Jesus obviously didn't think the Gospels were "all that was needed" since he didn't write anything but left that tasks to his apostles. They went on to write all the Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament. This as a whole isn't even all that is needed since Jesus told them that they were to remain where they were until he sent them his counsellor, the Holy Spirit, who would guide them. Jesus says you cannot understand the Scriptures until you have his Spirit residing in you. The Gospel of Thomas, especially based on the doctrinal absurdity that is verse 114, but also on dating and on its blatant lack of narrative is for good reason, not part of the Canon. I don't know why you would reject something as powerful as the Letter to the Galatians and then embrace Thomas.

I passionately agree that churches have messed up to a huge degree but I think you are missing the point of Jesus' mission if forget that he came not for the well but for the sick. The sick in the church are as worthy of Jesus' healing as those outside.

j dawson wrote:

I don't believe there is anything wrong with Christianity, it is the Churches that I don't like. The same applies to Islam and Judaism as far as I am concertned - it is a sad fact of life that man often changes and distorts things to suit his own ends.

I agree. But I agree because Jesus has told me that all men in all cases will distort and sin. He has come to end that but the culmination of that work will only happen at the very last.

the real ramon

Re: Paul, it's not unusual for Christians to think Paul strayed from early Christianity or even corrupted it, there was a program and debate on BBC radio recently where a person put forward that the 5 people who have done most harm to Christianity were Paul, Constantine, Luther, Newton and John Paul II. Missed it unfortunately but would have been interested.

I don't know anywhere near as much about Christian history or Theology as anyone else on this thread but I would agree that the Churches have done a lot of harm. If the point of Christianity is to give yourself over to someone else, Jesus or otherwise, I'm afraid i's not something I would view as healthy, and if Jesus said that we should give ourselves over to him I'd be a bit wary of that. I'd definitely agree with UnitarianUniversalists that he was just a man and teacher and not divine, unless of course everything is divine in a pantheist way.

Excelsior

Well it is something you should be wary of because that is what Jesus is claiming. He thinks he is God. And if God exists then one ought to be subject to him. But you'd be the biggest fool imaginable if you accepted such claims without reason...



(... thankfully there are lots of reasons. )

blackbuster

There is not that much difference between Spirituality and Christianity if you look at the bible closely.:)