posted
So my buddy and I were talking last night about our different takes on christianity, and church going experiences in general. We both seemed to have the same opinion that church should definately be about the fellowship, and much less about the church itself.
IE the church should teach you that the bible has all of these rules not because you will be punished for not following them, but in most cases it helps you grow to become a better person, and as a whole a good group of people.
I know that in my past I have seen churches that have a priest or pastor that teaches strictly from the "do as this says or you are going to hell" point of view, and it has never made sense to me why they think that this is the way the bible should be taught.
Agree or disagree, let me know or tell some stories on your experiences with this Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you just want the fellowship, why call it church at all? Why not join a club at a community center or a country club? (This is a serious question.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KAT: Personally I would have no problem with that, if I believed that the country club taught the same values and came together with a plan to help people learn and use those values to better their lives...
However if I want to go to a place where they do all of that, and get those values from the bible, or perhaps some other religious text, I would go to that church. It just pains me to see the leaders of some of those churches using their leadership in a way tends to be quick and easy but doesn't really change a whole lot.
I have often wondered if catholocism isn't running itself into the ground for this very reason. And my thoughts are not about changing strict rules in order to keep up with the times we live in (although that should be taken into consideration at points), it is more about how the values are taught and how those values can help people understand more about themselves and the people around them, and becoming better people through that understanding.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying every church is this way, I have met some great priests in the catholic church, as well as other churches. I just don't see any point to the other approach of the subject.
I just think that a lot of the motions and ceremony that a lot of churches have tend to take away from the actual experience of learning the knowledge that the people came there to learn. In a lot of ways I can't see any differences between the group chanting prayers on cue to be any different that a group of sun worshipers out in a field all uttering their own little chant (no offense to any of you sun worshipers out there ).
posted
Tom: LoL. Well I would have to say I think that they missed the point . The point (to me, this is after all just my opinion) is more about people following those rules because they understand them and the believe that the rules actually have some merit. Why follow a belief system if you do it out of fear of punishment. If you do so, do you ever really have any true freedom in that system, and can you really say you have faith in that rule system?
Some people might say they can, but I can't say the same for me.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you want a church to "[teach] the same values", but not mention any adverse consequences for not doing so?
I agree that the stick isn't the higher law and if that's the only teaching method something's missing, but I also don't like the idea of pretending commandments are suggestions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you do so, do you ever really have any true freedom in that system, and can you really say you have faith in that rule system?"
Ah. See, for you, religion's all about self-improvement. For a lot of people, religion's about not burning in torment for eternity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: Not Exactly. There are always consequences for peoples actions, and people should know what the consequences that their belief system should be. However, at the same time I think that an understanding of why the rules are important and what they are actually there for is more effective in the long run than a simple statement of punishment.
So yes I agree that the consequences should be included, but also as you said, that consequences shouldn't be the ruling force.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: The funny thing is that I don't consider myself Christian, but I do believe in some higher being. I also believe in the merit behind learning the philosphies behind the religions because at their core, most of them want to help people be better people.
A few months ago I was looking at how I spent a lot of my time questioning religion and doubting it as soon as I heard it because it was said by a "religious" person and over the years I had built up a large ammount of skepticism towards many religious ideals. This is when I realized that I was actually hindering myself by shunning religion rather than trying to learn the philosphy behind it. I don't have to accept the religion as a whole, but I can always learn something from it, and I can become a better person because of it.
Which I think explains why as you said before,"for you, religion's all about self-improvement". Because it really is all about that to me.
What is it to you though? What do you think about all of this? Do you follow a strict line, or do you think of it as a lot of extra stuff that you could learn anyway on your own from logically figuring people out? Or is it something completely different?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the "church" part of your church isn't speaking to you, for some reason.
I go to church mainly for the church part, including the sunday school and the service opportunities and all of the lessons. The social part is not something I particularly seek out, but just allow it to happen naturally as it occurs (or so far at least, as it doesn't occur).
For me it's like joining the track club of religious training. On my own I do read, study, and pray. Yet if left to myself I will go in spurts, and then tend to neglect my spiritual life at other times. I have found I can make better progress if my training continues steadily, having several regularly scheduled times set aside to pray, learn, discuss the lessons, and so on. I just stay more involved and motivated to read scriptures more, pray more, and spend more time each day communing with God.
Also I do it because I feel it's something God wants me to do, for whatever reason He has. I believe in this guidance, so I follow it as best I can, with the sure knowledge that it will be a good thing, that I will have been glad I did it, and that I'll learn and grow because of it. God doesn't tell you to do things you will regret. Always, even if you're reluctant and it seems like it will be hard and you won't benefit, that turns out not to be true. You always come out ahead when you follow His guidance.
It's actually sort of bad that that's true, because it means if you want to be selfish and grab all the goodies in life for yourself, the smartest way to go about that is to follow the commandments exactly, and seek and follow His guidance always. I would like to be able to think I would try to do that anyway, for noble selfless reasons, but I suspect the truth is that I'm a hedonist of great discernment and taste. I'm only interested in the real thing, the true joy that never goes sour. <wicked grin>
[ June 23, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good church really ought to include both aspects. If I attend a church, and every message is some variation on "turn or burn," I'm going to get really sick of it pretty fast. On the other hand, if the church is all fellowship, then that's going to stagnate just about as quickly. Both are important components of a well-functioning church.
It's important to know what the scriptures say, and what the consequences are for disobedience. From reading the Bible, the message of Christ's sacrifice seems more a message of love than one of condemnation. IMHO, a church that focuses more on the results of disobedience than they do on the relationship with Christ is missing the mark by a pretty wide margin.
The scriptures also tell us not to give up meeting together. It also says to bear one another's burdens. If you aren't spending time with other members of the congregation, you don't know what burdens they have, let alone be able to provide any assistance to them.
I grew up in a church that seemed to focus a lot on the "hellfire and brimstone" type of message. It scared the crap out of me. I'd lie awake at night, as a kid, trying to comprehend "eternity" and trying to imagine what that would be like combined with a lake of fire. "Salvation" became synonymous with "fire insurance" in my mind, and I definitely wanted some of that.
I accepted Christ, but I didn't really grow spiritually until I got into college and encountered people who challenged my view of God. They taught me to see God as someone who wanted a relationship with me. They taught me to read the scriptures on a regular basis, and even commit parts of it to memory. They taught me the benefits of fellowshipping with other believers who cared about each other and would be there for me when I needed them, and in the same way I'd be there for them whenever I could. I'm a much stronger Christian today because of them.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion on this is that there are several types of "conversions" that happen in choosing a church or religion.
These will be listed in no particular order, as their importance differs to each of us.
1. The Spiritual conversion: Does the church move you spiritually in its beliefs, meetings, and rituals?
2. The Social conversion: Have you made friends with members of the congragation? DO you enjoy their activities? On the other hand, if you are not a social animal, do you enjoy the lack of activities and the concentration on the spiritual, the ritual, or the intellectual.
3. The Ritualistic conversion: DO you believe that the ordinances necessary for your salvation are offered in this church? I believe that the Catholic church identifies seven sacraments (I may be wrong in the number). The Mormons have their temples. Some Christian churches believe that the only saving ordinance necessary is water baptism, while others believe that confessing Jesus to be your personal saviour is enough. DOes your selected church agree with your belief?
4. The Intellectual conversion: Do you believe what they teach. If they teach salvation is by faith only, grace only, or works only, and you believe it is some combination, you will not be happy and not have this conversion.
5. The Attitude Conversion: If you enjoy a church that teaches the positives, you will not be happy with a hell, fire, and damnation preacher (and vice versa).
6. The Physical conversion: Do you feel the need to worship in a large, ornate cathedral? DO you prefer to worship in a small church with a few, close friends? Do you enjoy the arena sized church with 10,000 in attendance? To some people, where you meet is important.
From what I read in your original post, the "attitude" and the "social" conversions are what are most important to you in a church. I personally find the intellectual and the spiritual to be most important to me. We all differ in what we look for and need in a church.
Think about familys that join your church and disappear after a month or two. THey probably did not feel comfortable there and found another place that fit their needs.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I'd use the word "conversion" (which often has very specific meaning in religion threads), but that's an excellent summary Jalapenoman.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. It is something I have thought about for years and even wrote a paper on back in college many years ago.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Jalapenoman, that was an awesome post. According to your list, the LDS church satisfies my personal needs and feelings on numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. So far the only one I lack is 2, and that's just me, I'm very much not a joiner, so I have trouble with formal groups.
Informal groups of friends who get together out of sheer friendship and shared interests (like hatrack, for instance) I enjoy a lot and have been involved in a number of these. But any hint of officiality seems to make them go sour for me. Like the Birmingham Astronomical Society which was so much fun for a short while, got to be increasingly unpleasant as it grew in size and formality. We'd do a thing that pleased us, like the newsletter, and made us laugh and have fun, and then someone would disapprove and pick holes until it ruined the fun totally and we finally said, "okay, that's good, you do it."
I'm not sure where that impulse comes from, to tell other people they aren't doing their appointed tasks in quite the right way, but it seems like informal groups don't have that problem and formal ones do. I guess paying dues gives people a feeling of entitlement or something. Not sure, exactly.
Anyway, I think you're right about the things different people look for in a church. To that I would add 7. The Musical conversion. I have an almost physical need for good music. The church I went to before I joined the LDS church was a little pentacostal church with a mostly African-American congregation, and they really rocked the house. The music was fantastic, and you could feel the spirit in it so powerfully. (That church was all about spirituality, as they did have powerfully moving services nearly every Sunday, and people would fall into the aisles and speak in tongues and so on. It was amazing. I felt God's presence in that church very vividly. It was only after that experience that I was able to feel God's presence in the much more understated services to which I had been accustomed in my youth.) Anyway, I love the hymns in the LDS hymnbook, and am trying to learn to play my favorites, so that perhaps I will be able to do something more musically in my ward. At the moment it's musically very poor. I hope I can change that someday.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The musical point is a good one. Some people need a choir and a hymnal and singing. I do not find these real important to me and have often thought that there is too much music in my church (I prefer the oratory). In fact, we used to have a program in our adult Sunday School where we had to learn a new hymn each month. We would be forced to sing parts and get everything right. I always spent that part of the meeting in the hallway.
They would also make invitations every week for the people interested in joining the choir to attend choir practice. I am such a poor singer that, once, the person making the announcement made a joke and said that everyone in the congregation but me was invited to join. I will proudly claim to my deathbed that I was invited not to join the church choir!
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).![[Smile]](smile.gif)
