Are their any branches of Christianity that follow Jesus and nothing else?

Dr. Baltar

I've been getting interested in Jesus again lately. Now, I think Mr. Ghandi summed it up best: "I love your Christ, but your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

Essentially, I could never follow the Catholic Church as I believe if Jesus were to come back today he would pull the Vatican down brick for brick. I cannot followe the bible because it's a 2000 year old text translated numerous times with books missing and books altered.

I can however trust praying by myself, and I can trust the basic idea of Jesus which is "love all". -

The anti-gay stance that many christians have, the anti-every other religion that isn't christian stance and the anti-secular stance really annoys me, so essentially, I'm wondering if there is a sect of Christianity that follows Christ and takes no notice in anything else.

strobe

Well Baltar the Bible is really the only record of anything Jesus did or said or taught, at least it is the source material for everything. So if you are not willing to trust what is in the bible, well, what are you basing your belief in Jesus as the Messiah on?

The nearest I can think to what you are looking for would be a non-denominational Christian but by definition there is no sect of non-denominational Christianity. But non-denominational Christians usually still follow at least some (most) of what is in the Bible. Certainly the Gospels at any rate. Following Jesus whilst dismissing what is written in the Gospels would be like being an Al Pacino fan but having never seen any of his movies or seen him give an interview or even seen a photo of the man.

I guess if I'm giving a Christian Spirited Answer(TM) you should look into the legitimacy of the Bible rather than just dismiss it straight off as inaccurate due to the translations. There have been lots of books written about it and some Christian apologists have made a pretty successful career for themselves out of doing nothing but arguing for it's continuity from the first 'editions' up through to the modern day translations. I'm sure other posters will have recommendations for talks or books you could check out on the subject. If after that you are still unconvinced of the truthfulness of the Bible, then maybe you want to seriously think about why exactly you are an Al Pacino fan to begin with.

marty1985

I have heard of an interesting church called the Red Letter Christians, so called because the actual quotes of Jesus used to be printed in red in old bibles. They have an interesting pamphlet entitled What Jesus Said About Homosexuality. The pamphlet is, of course, blank. They follow Christ according to the quotes attributed to him. And most of what Jesus said was about poverty, charity and social justice. The Red Letter Christians were also influential in getting Bono to do a lot of his campaigning around the time of Live 8.

I guess this is the kind of church you are interested in. I find them really interesting too, but to be honest I don't have much information on them aside from what I've already said, so I would encourage you to google them.

They appeal to me as well. I really enjoy theological debates, but I think we are all too hung up on arguing over the need to be right - as if we could ever know all that is right and wrong in God's eyes. I think this is why Buddhism has so many sympathizers in the west. When it comes down to homosexuality they basically say "Why does it matter to you if someone else is gay?"

But remember that not all Christians are the annoying, self-righteous and morally superior type, and there are a lof of smart and sensible ones here.

PDN

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I've been getting interested in Jesus again lately. Now, I think Mr. Ghandi summed it up best: "I love your Christ, but your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

Essentially, I could never follow the Catholic Church as I believe if Jesus were to come back today he would pull the Vatican down brick for brick. I cannot followe the bible because it's a 2000 year old text translated numerous times with books missing and books altered.

I can however trust praying by myself, and I can trust the basic idea of Jesus which is "love all". -

The anti-gay stance that many christians have, the anti-every other religion that isn't christian stance and the anti-secular stance really annoys me, so essentially, I'm wondering if there is a sect of Christianity that follows Christ and takes no notice in anything else.

So, do you mean, by 'following Jesus', that you just say, "Hey, I think Jesus is really cool, but I'm free to totally ignore everything that He taught!" ?

Or do you mean, by 'following Jesus', that you try to live by the teaching of Jesus?

Your post makes it sound like you really want to do whatever you feel is right or wrong and then claim to be a follower of Jesus.

For example, if you follow the teachings of Jesus then straight away you find Him claiming that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no-one can come to God except through Him. That, logically, means that all other religions are wrong. Whoops! Isn't that what you claimed you were trying to avoid?

homer911

This is the strangest idea for a poll yet..

Some variation on the saying "There's no smoke without fire" comes to mind

philologos

Dr. Baltar is regarding other faiths as false "anti-other religions"? I don't know if this is true, but if so I'm afraid I have to view other faiths which contradict with Christianity as false if it is indeed true. One cannot say that Christianity is true if they don't believe some of the claims that it makes, such as the notion that there is only one God, that Jesus is the only way to the truth. Some of these are hard claims to make, or accept but they are at the very centre of Christianity.

As for the Bible. I believe it to be the inspired word of God and the only real and reliable account of the life of Jesus, or of God's fulfilling and deep relationship with mankind. Dismissing the Bible is unthinkable to me. It's been an invaluable reference in order to understand the true nature of God just a little bit more since I've started. King David once said that God's law was more valuable than gold or silver. I have to agree with him although I do need to pay more attention to His words sometimes.

I think PDN has hit the nail on the head. The problem you're having is that a lot of Christianity does follow Christ, but they are also faithful to God the Father because that is who Christ followed.

Zombrex

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I can however trust praying by myself, and I can trust the basic idea of Jesus which is "love all".

I'm not a Christian, but I imagine that most would take issue with filtering down Jesus' message to a (some what inaccurate) sound bite.

The "basic idea of Jesus" was that all have fallen short of the glory of God but some who believe, repent and humble themselves before God will be saved punishment though Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

"Love all" is part of Jesus' message but it is within the context of humbling oneself before God and realizing his perfect standard of love, and trying to rise yourself closer to that standard. Even tax collectors love those close to them, it means little to love those who love you back, God loves all.

While you can take a non-Christian position that Jesus simply said some nice things, it some what does a disservice to both believers and non-believers a like to divorce the sound bites from the over all context they were said in.

georgieporgy

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I've been getting interested in Jesus again lately.

I can however trust praying by myself, and I can trust the basic idea of Jesus which is "love all". -

It can be hard to find the correct path to anything.

But as you say, if you are comfortable praying to Jesus by yourself, I don't see where you will go wrong. Simply ask Jesus to show you the way (His way, not yours!) and he will.

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps some form of Quakerism might suit you. However, unless you take scripture seriously - and by that I mean understand it as Divine revelation - I'm not sure what you have to build upon.

If we are talking about Christianity as a whole, I'm not sure it is correct to make a blanket anti-other-religion, anti-gay and anti-secular accusation. But that is for another thread.

FISMA

Dr. Baltar,

Do you believe that the Catholic Church, as an institution, is corrupt.

I am wondering IF the church is corrupt, then is that because of the institution itself or because it is made up people, that are inherently corrupt? Does the person corrupt the Church or does the Church corrupt the person?

Also, what institution would you point to as being without flaw? Perhaps, as a model for the Church?

You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.

"my" - singular

"Church" - possessive.

Morality is not relative.

georgieporgy

This reminds me of another passage in Scripture, after the stupenduous feeding of the multitude with a few loaves and fishes Jesus went on to say "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life in you".
The crowd,with full bellies, slunk away muttering that guy's crazy. Jesus asked his disciples "will you also go away?" and Peter answered (on behalf of the others) "Master,to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life"

For my part I'm with Peter, and I'm quite happy eating His Body and drinking His Blood.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not a Christian, but I imagine that most would take issue with filtering down Jesus' message to a (some what inaccurate) sound bite.

The "basic idea of Jesus" was that all have fallen short of the glory of God but some who believe, repent and humble themselves before God will be saved punishment though Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

"Love all" is part of Jesus' message but it is within the context of humbling oneself before God and realizing his perfect standard of love, and trying to rise yourself closer to that standard. Even tax collectors love those close to them, it means little to love those who love you back, God loves all.

While you can take a non-Christian position that Jesus simply said some nice things, it some what does a disservice to both believers and non-believers a like to divorce the sound bites from the over all context they were said in.

You've been reading the Bible again, haven't you? That's pure gospel truth you came out with. People have been burnt for less.

Seriously, 5 STARS for comprehension.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seriously, 5 STARS for comprehension.

Given that he missed out a vital componant (namely, God predestining some to believe, repent and humble themselves and all the rest to Hell) 4 stars strikes me as closer to the mark.

Blueboyd

I guess some would like to call me an Ala Carte Christian cos I pick what speaks to me. I don't mind name calling in negative sense even if I find it a bit childish.

I think others pic in the same way too even if they might follow some specific strict sect or even if they were to follow the teachings of a church. Then they have chosen that direction. Everyone has a choice.

But I do see how much the culture what you were born into may define that choice. Every teenager knows how hard it is to be different when the group pressure is strong.

What bothers me in many sects is that the worhsipping of Jesus has become more important than what he taught.

Of all religious text I find maybe the Gospel of Thomas most interesting. And I can see why it was not included in the bible. It totally contradicts what is taught by most Christian sects today. In matter of fact the text is very dangerous to a strong church. If Jesus was a rebel who did not bow down to religious leaders and taught that Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you that would make many churches look more like opponents than suporters of Jesus.

So no wonder it was deemed to be heretic and of course when something is deemed heretic there are immediately 100 000 parrots who say they are Christians that GoT is heretic and anyone who believes in it is a heretic.

Which of course includes the presumption that someonelse outside of you has the right to define for you what you believe in.

In a way one could say that the essence of a religion is that it is more like a form of governance and control than a genuine faith. One should separate God from religion. They are two different things. Religion is a man made contruct of the belifes into our existence. And becaue it is only a construct man has the need to make it more real by unification.

But even if I do like GoT I think every text (including bible) is written by men and is not a God's word but word about God by men. And may I stress the word men cos almost in any religion no views of women have ever been tolerated as equal.

But in the end I must admit I KNOW nothing about God. That doesn't mean I can't believe in one or define God the way I want. Dr. Baltar may look for a sect that suits him. But for me it was - I looked too but found the sect / the church / the Kingdom of Heaven inside of me not outside.

If you want some other man to define God for you that's fine with me. But I wish there were less Talibans to force their views on everybody else.

newmug

I think you're being a bit harsh on the Catholic Church there! It was Jesus himself who set it up, there was no internet in those days to spread His message! It is pure Christianity, the original and best!

neuro-praxis

newmug wrote: »

I think you're being a bit harsh on the Catholic Church there! It was Jesus himself who set it up, there was no internet in those days to spread His message! It is pure Christianity, the original and best!

What a load.

newmug

neuro-praxis wrote: »

What a load.

Very intelligent response:rolleyes:

Explain how you think its a "load", why you dont believe, who flesh it all out. Explain to the 2 billion Catholics approx, (who rarely get their fair slice of cake here on boards TBH) what you know that they dont - Go on

marty1985

newmug wrote: »

Very intelligent response:rolleyes:

Explain how you think its a "load", why you dont believe, who flesh it all out. Explain to the 2 billion Catholics approx, (who rarely get their fair slice of cake here on boards TBH) what you know that they dont - Go on

Jesus was a Jew. He never set up any religion. He instructed his followers to uphold the Jewish law. Christianity is the religion ABOUT Jesus, not the religion OF Jesus. I'm a Catholic and I would never say Jesus set up the Catholic institution.

Seaneh

Blueboyd wrote: »

I guess some would like to call me an Ala Carte Christian cos I pick what speaks to me. I don't mind name calling in negative sense even if I find it a bit childish.

I think others pic in the same way too even if they might follow some specific strict sect or even if they were to follow the teachings of a church. Then they have chosen that direction. Everyone has a choice.

But I do see how much the culture what you were born into may define that choice. Every teenager knows how hard it is to be different when the group pressure is strong.

What bothers me in many sects is that the worhsipping of Jesus has become more important than what he taught.

Of all religious text I find maybe the Gospel of Thomas most interesting. And I can see why it was not included in the bible. It totally contradicts what is taught by most Christian sects today. In matter of fact the text is very dangerous to a strong church. If Jesus was a rebel who did not bow down to religious leaders and taught that Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you that would make many churches look more like opponents than suporters of Jesus.

So no wonder it was deemed to be heretic and of course when something is deemed heretic there are immediately 100 000 parrots who say they are Christians that GoT is heretic and anyone who believes in it is a heretic.

Which of course includes the presumption that someonelse outside of you has the right to define for you what you believe in.

In a way one could say that the essence of a religion is that it is more like a form of governance and control than a genuine faith. One should separate God from religion. They are two different things. Religion is a man made contruct of the belifes into our existence. And becaue it is only a construct man has the need to make it more real by unification.

But even if I do like GoT I think every text (including bible) is written by men and is not a God's word but word about God by men. And may I stress the word men cos almost in any religion no views of women have ever been tolerated as equal.

But in the end I must admit I KNOW nothing about God. That doesn't mean I can't believe in one or define God the way I want. Dr. Baltar may look for a sect that suits him. But for me it was - I looked too but found the sect / the church / the Kingdom of Heaven inside of me not outside.

If you want some other man to define God for you that's fine with me. But I wish there were less Talibans to force their views on everybody else.

That's some amount of waffle. fair play there.

zoomtard

While some crazy maniacs on this thread think Jesus hung around Rome eating spaghetti bolognese, had Christianity been started by someone subject to the advertising complaints commissions instead of a wandering, pale Galilean Jew, it would be called TRINITARIANISM.

Christianity that follows Jesus and nothing else is impossible.

Festus

zoomtard wrote: »

Christianity that follows Jesus and nothing else is impossible.

so how do you explain Catholicism?

Festus

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I've been getting interested in Jesus again lately. Now, I think Mr. Ghandi summed it up best: "I love your Christ, but your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

There is an element of truth there but with so many different flavours, sects, creeds, and divisions in Christianity to who are you refering?

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Essentially, I could never follow the Catholic Church as I believe if Jesus were to come back today he would pull the Vatican down brick for brick. I cannot followe the bible because it's a 2000 year old text translated numerous times with books missing and books altered.

When Jesus was a child and went missing He was found in His Fathers house - the then Temple of Jerusalem. This temple was later destroyed when it was clear the Jews, or at least the Jewish leadership had rejected Christ and His message.
Since then many other so called Christians have rejected Christs teachings and messages and removed books and altered others.
If Christ were to come back today He would reside in the Vatican as this is where the Truth of His message is preserved for all whether they like it or not.
No one else has as many books in their Bible and no one else has an unaltered text.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I can however trust praying by myself, and I can trust the basic idea of Jesus which is "love all". -

I'm not sure that "love all" is biblical. As a paraphrase it is close however it is this type of re-interpretation that leads to many misunderstandings.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

The anti-gay stance that many christians have, the anti-every other religion that isn't christian stance and the anti-secular stance really annoys me, so essentially, I'm wondering if there is a sect of Christianity that follows Christ and takes no notice in anything else.

To follow Christ is to take notice. Not to take notice allows many sins and evils to go unchallenged.
However I take exception to the charge that Christians are "anti-gay". The implication is that there are Christians who take exception to the sinner and not the sin. That may be true but of the Catholic Church it says that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. It is not anti gay or anti homosexual any more than it is anti-protestant ot anti-muslim.

Boards has a rule - attack the post not the poster. The Catholic Church has a similar rule. Attack the sin, not the sinner.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

so how do you explain Catholicism?

Yeah. Or Protestantism.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yeah. Or Protestantism.

Strange. I was under the impression that a lot of Protestants follow the Bible first and Christ later.

Is there a Sola Christus form of Protestantism that ignores the other four?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

No one else has as many books in their Bible and no one else has an unaltered text.

Leaving aside quantity obviously not equalling quality, how do you know you have an unaltered text (given the unavailability of the original autographs)

Without arguing in a "Mother Chuch says so" circle - I mean.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Strange. I was under the impression that a lot of Protestants follow the Bible first and Christ later.

Is there a Sola Christus form of Protestantism that ignores the other four?

They would argue that all scripture is God-breathed and so following it is following Christ (what with Christ being God)

marty1985

Festus wrote: »

If Christ were to come back today He would reside in the Vatican as this is where the Truth of His message is preserved for all whether they like it or not.
No one else has as many books in their Bible and no one else has an unaltered text.

.

See, this is similar to the thinking of the Jewish authorities of his day. Why is this man spending time eating and drinking with tax collectors and prostitutes and the dregs of society, why won't he come meet with us?

antiskeptic

marty1985 wrote: »

See, this is similar to the thinking of the Jewish authorities of his day. Why is this man spending time eating and drinking with tax collectors and prostitutes and the dregs of society, why won't he come meet with us?

Scripture would argue that his first coming wasn't intended to involve judgement. His second to judge the living and the dead so I wouldn't be quite so comfortable with my sin then.


Where the idea of his taking up residence in Rome comes from (or the purpose he might have for doing so) I have no idea.

marty1985

antiskeptic wrote: »

Scripture would argue that his first coming wasn't intended to involve judgement. His second to judge the living and the dead so I wouldn't be quite so comfortable with my sin then.


Where the idea of his taking up residence in Rome comes from (or the purpose he might have for doing so) I have no idea.

Fair enough. All I'm saying is that no one should be so certain thinking that they know what Jesus would do. It is that kind of attitude that got him crucified in the first place.

If you wanna crucify him again, sure, let's keep our eyes fixed on the Vatican.

marty1985

Seaneh wrote: »

That's some amount of waffle. fair play there.

I actually think he makes a good, coherant point.

I've never read the gospel of Thomas but it's included in a book I received at Xmas so I will read it soon.

We are all on a spiritual journey. And it should be a journey of awakening and realization - not indoctrination. I have the privilege of being a Christian in a Buddhist country. And I've learned not to believe anything, no matter who says it, no matter where I read it, no matter what religious book it's written in, unless it agrees with my own reasoning and common sense. God gave me reasoning and common sense and I will use it to get closer to his truth.

Keep going Blueboyd my friend. Don't give up when
anyone mocks you. Just keep following the truth wherever it leads you.

marty1985

Festus wrote: »

I'm not sure that "love all" is biblical. As a paraphrase it is close however it is this type of re-interpretation...

Dr Balter: you can trust prayer in
a peaceful solitary place, you can trust that you can speak
to God, and you can trust that Jesus is
love.

Don't let others throw you off course. The journey is yours and the journey is everything. Trust in prayer And trust in love. All else will be ok. Keep an open mind. Never stop learning and you will someday reach a point where you feel comfortable. Think for yourself. You will be glad you did.

Festus

marty1985 wrote: »

Dr Balter: you can trust prayer in
a peaceful solitary place, you can trust that you can speak
to God, and you can trust that Jesus is
love.

Don't let others throw you off course. The journey is yours and the journey is everything. Trust in prayer And trust in love. All else will be ok. Keep an open mind. Never stop learning and you will someday reach a point where you feel comfortable. Think for yourself. You will be glad you did.

So you, or Dr Balter, don't rate the Holy Spirit then...

Festus

marty1985 wrote: »

See, this is similar to the thinking of the Jewish authorities of his day. Why is this man spending time eating and drinking with tax collectors and prostitutes and the dregs of society, why won't he come meet with us?

Not really unless you are prepared to argue that there are no sinners in the Vatican.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Leaving aside quantity obviously not equalling quality, how do you know you have an unaltered text (given the unavailability of the original autographs)

Without arguing in a "Mother Chuch says so" circle - I mean.

No need. There are enough scholars in the world who would challenge the Church and do so often and publically if any translation authorised by the Church deviated so massively from the original extant manuscripts that it could be be classed as errant or wide of the mark.
Not even the Churches most virulent opponents do this so it must be accepted that the translations authorised by the Church are inerrant.

All Christianity relies upon the Catholic Church and Her archives as the source for their versions of the Bible and as veracity and validity tests.
As for unavailability of original autographs, the time between them and authorised copies is about 60 years which for a civilization steeped in oral tradition is nothing.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

how do you know you have an unaltered text (given the unavailability of the original autographs). Without arguing in a "Mother Chuch says so" circle - I mean.

Festus wrote: »

No need. There are enough scholars in the world who would challenge the Church and do so often and publically if any translation authorised by the Church deviated so massively from the original extant manuscripts that it could be be classed as errant or wide of the mark.

Not even the Churches most virulent opponents do this so it must be accepted that the translations authorised by the Church are inerrant.

Translations from the 'original extant manuscripts' utilised by the Roman church in their own translations might well be considered inerrant (in the sense of them being considered faithful to a text). So might translations from 'original extant manuscripts' utilised by others in other translations (in the sense of them being considered faithful to a text).

So when you say that only Rome has an 'unaltered text', what do you mean precisely? Bear in mind that any translation from one language to another necessarily involves alteration.

All Christianity relies upon the Catholic Church and Her archives as the source for their versions of the Bible and as veracity and validity tests.

In the sense that the Roman church acts as a storage depot for certain texts - a mule function in other words. Not as an authority on what constitutes a useful or unaltered translation. Not as an authority on veracity or validity.

As for unavailability of original autographs, the time between them and authorised copies is about 60 years which for a civilization steeped in oral tradition is nothing.

What has a society steeped in an oral tradition got to do with the accurate propagation of written texts over a period of 60 years?

neuro-praxis

Is there a "report thread" function? Sometimes the stupidity around here is too much to bear.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Translations from the 'original extant manuscripts' utilised by the Roman church in their own translations might well be considered inerrant (in the sense of them being considered faithful to a text). So might translations from 'original extant manuscripts' utilised by others in other translations (in the sense of them being considered faithful to a text).

So when you say that only Rome has an 'unaltered text', what do you mean precisely? Bear in mind that any translation from one language to another necessarily involves alteration.

What do you mean by Rome exactly? I don't recall mentioning Rome in my response.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

What do you mean by Rome exactly? I don't recall mentioning Rome in my response.

Rome/The Roman Catholic church/The Church*/The One True Church* - all intended to mean the same thing.


*when used by Roman Catholics to denote the Roman Catholic Church, other Christians use these terms to mean a different kind of church

Blueboyd

marty1985 wrote: »

I actually think he makes a good, coherant point.

I've never read the gospel of Thomas but it's included in a book I received at Xmas so I will read it soon.

We are all on a spiritual journey. And it should be a journey of awakening and realization - not indoctrination. I have the privilege of being a Christian in a Buddhist country. And I've learned not to believe anything, no matter who says it, no matter where I read it, no matter what religious book it's written in, unless it agrees with my own reasoning and common sense. God gave me reasoning and common sense and I will use it to get closer to his truth.

Keep going Blueboyd my friend. Don't give up when
anyone mocks you. Just keep following the truth wherever it leads you.

Thanks Marty. It is so easy to question others but it is much harder to question ones own belifes no matter if it is a religious belief or some other belief. And when a belief comes as a fact to someone it is hard to have any proper conversation.

In general I think we like stability in the world and like to think we know how everything works so its just natural that anything that threatens that stability has to be questioned or ridiculated.

I think there are lots of stuff we are not so aware of that comes from our culture that affects our behaviour. For instance here growing up in a Lutheran country one feels immediately guilty of lying on the sofa too long becuase Lutherans were taught that it is sinful not to work hard. Even if you are not Lutheran yourself you still feel "the Lutheran ethics" that comes from your cultre - formed generation after generation. But you just don't have any connection to the source anymore where it springs from necessarily.

Maybe that Budhist culture affects you in such a way too that you want to get enlightened and find what you are looking for instead of just following. Some would argue that there is a contradiction between the words "searching" and "following". But lets not get hang on semantics.


You know for some reason your nick reminds me of Marty Scorsese and The Last Temptation of Christ. I think prsenting anything that is not prevailing in a given culture - no matter if it is a Interweb Forum or a country is always daring. And one can suspect attacks from left and right if one does so.


In any case I wish you a great New Year 2011.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rome/The Roman Catholic church/The Church*/The One True Church* - all intended to mean the same thing.


*when used by Roman Catholics to denote the Roman Catholic Church, other Christians use these terms to mean a different kind of church

Rome is a city in Italy so it might be better to use the reference the Catholic Church. It's clearer and lacks the sectarian connotations the use of "Rome" in this context has.

Graces7

marty1985 wrote: »

I have heard of an interesting church called the Red Letter Christians, so called because the actual quotes of Jesus used to be printed in red in old bibles. They have an interesting pamphlet entitled What Jesus Said About Homosexuality. The pamphlet is, of course, blank. They follow Christ according to the quotes attributed to him. And most of what Jesus said was about poverty, charity and social justice. The Red Letter Christians were also influential in getting Bono to do a lot of his campaigning around the time of Live 8.

I guess this is the kind of church you are interested in. I find them really interesting too, but to be honest I don't have much information on them aside from what I've already said, so I would encourage you to google them.

They appeal to me as well. I really enjoy theological debates, but I think we are all too hung up on arguing over the need to be right - as if we could ever know all that is right and wrong in God's eyes. I think this is why Buddhism has so many sympathizers in the west. When it comes down to homosexuality they basically say "Why does it matter to you if someone else is gay?"

But remember that not all Christians are the annoying, self-righteous and morally superior type, and there are a lof of smart and sensible ones here.

Interesting ...

Not true of course.

Jesus came as He clearly says, not to destroy the law but to fulfil it... not one iota will be lost....

This refers to Mosaic Law. Which clearly forbids sexual deviancy in any form.

He is the New Covenant.

And in His teachings and His life, He clearly rewrites those sections of the Law that His coming will change. Not abolish; change.

Hence the " love your enemies" replaces "an eye for an eye"... The dietary laws go.. reinforced later by the vision Peter has... The hygiene laws go... and the strict Sabbath laws go.

But not the sexual laws... In fact He reaffirms marriage. And family.. and as the basis of society which family, man, woman, child is.

Had they to be contradicted, the Laws laid down in Leviticus Jesus would have done so. In John 6 He prevents the death penaly for adultery; always mercy.. but.. "Go and sin no more.."

I understand your other statement; but this is the Christian forum and the Christian view... and to many it does matter.. to those who come to us and ask.. And we do indeed know right from wrong.. Jesus teaches us. Who many of us love more than life itself and who indeed IS life itself.

NB being "smart and sensible" has nothing to do with following Jesus. Heaven forbid!

Must really go now; work to do and prayer to pray.

Festus

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Interesting ...

Not true of course.

Jesus came as He clearly says, not to destroy the law but to fulfil it... not one iota will be lost....

This refers to Mosaic Law. Which clearly forbids sexual deviancy in any form.

He is the New Covenant.

And in His teachings and His life, He clearly rewrites those sections of the Law that His coming will change. Not abolish; change.

Hence the " love your enemies" replaces "an eye for an eye"... The dietary laws go.. reinforced later by the vision Peter has... The hygiene laws go... and the strict Sabbath laws go.

But not the sexual laws... In fact He reaffirms marriage. And family.. and as the basis of society which family, man, woman, child is.

Had they to be contradicted, the Laws laid down in Leviticus Jesus would have done so. In John 6 He prevents the death penaly for adultery; always mercy.. but.. "Go and sin no more.."

I understand your other statement; but this is the Christian forum and the Christian view... and to many it does matter.. to those who come to us and ask.. And we do indeed know right from wrong.. Jesus teaches us. Who many of us love more than life itself and who indeed IS life itself.

NB being "smart and sensible" has nothing to do with following Jesus. Heaven forbid!

Must really go now; work to do and prayer to pray.

Agreed. He also said

[16] If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. [17] And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. [18] And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: [19] Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? [20] But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
[21] For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, [22] Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. [23] All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.

and the NIV which appears to be populare 'round these parts translates fornication (sex between the unmarried) as sexual immorality.

Christ is quite clear that sex is reserved for married couples consisting of one male and one female.

Interesting to note that in the French flag the red is for St. Denis, patron saint of Paris and the rue St. Denis is a pretty notorious red light area abounding with sexual immorality.

Perhaps they are really "French Letter Christians" :pac: :pac: :pac:

hsi

The Vatican is nothing more than the Tomb of St. Peter. Its the seat of the Bishop of Rome, on whom Christ said he would build his Church.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the Vatican, its all the people who form part of it.

The apostolic sucession goes back to Christ himself. It follows christ and nothing else. So don't knock what you don't know.

The Eastern Orthodox Chrurch as also a very Rich heritage and history.

If you are looking for a Church that bends to the whims of society, try the USA, they have churchs for every taste

GreenMantis

An interesting place to start is the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson took all of the teachings of Jesus out of the Bible for his own edification. After his death the collection was published:
http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1603863834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294426602&sr=8-1

You can read about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible

where they say "The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists."

You can read the complete text online at:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

PDN

GreenMantis wrote: »

An interesting place to start is the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson took all of the teachings of Jesus out of the Bible for his own edification. After his death the collection was published:
http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1603863834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294426602&sr=8-1

You can read about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible

where they say "The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists."

You can read the complete text online at:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

Which will suit anyone looking for a branch of Christianity that follows Thomas Jefferson and nothing else.

GreenMantis

PDN wrote: »

Which will suit anyone looking for a branch of Christianity that follows Thomas Jefferson and nothing else.

Personally I follow Ben Franklin, especially on Friday nights.

Actually the so-called Jefferson Bible contain only the actual teachings of Jesus (not Jefferson) pulled out of the Bible. There isn't any text that doesn't appear in the Bible. If someone wants to follow Jesus and nothing else as the OP asks this is an excellent resource.

PDN

GreenMantis wrote: »

Personally I follow Ben Franklin, especially on Friday nights.

Actually the so-called Jefferson Bible contain only the actual teachings of Jesus (not Jefferson) pulled out of the Bible. There isn't any text that doesn't appear in the Bible. If someone wants to follow Jesus and nothing else as the OP asks this is an excellent resource.

Well no, it isn't. Because Jefferson butchered the revelation of Jesus Christ by removing many of the things He did.

GreenMantis

PDN wrote: »

Well no, it isn't. Because Jefferson butchered the revelation of Jesus Christ by removing many of the things He did.

I respectfully disagree.

Jefferson removed the miracles, or what he considered to be supernatural 'magic tricks' and left in only the actual teachings. The rationale is that the miracles are expressions of WHY His teachings were important, but if you already agree His teachings are important then the miracles are unnecessary.

I understand if your interpretation of Christianity holds that the complete revelation of the Bible is sacred and anything less is heresy you wouldn't agree to this approach. That is fine.

However, I believe that a distillation of His teachings are extremely valuable. The OP may as well.

Fanny Cradock

GreenMantis wrote: »

However, I believe that a distillation of His teachings are extremely valuable. The OP may as well.

If you want to distil Jesus' teachings down to something that excludes all claims of his Divinity and the apparently unpalatable claims to the miraculous then he didn't say a great deal much that other luminaries hadn't already said before. In concocting his own Scripture, Jefferson succeed in ripping the heart out of the whole point of Christianity.

GreenMantis

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you want to distil Jesus' teachings down to something that excludes all claims of his Divinity and the apparently unpalatable claims to the miraculous then he didn't say a great deal much that other luminaries hadn't already said before. In concocting his own Scripture, Jefferson succeed in ripping the heart out of the whole point of Christianity.

Again I respectfully disagree.

When you say that this 'distills Jesus' teachings down to something that excludes all claims of His Divinity' that in only true insofar as Jesus' teachings did not actually include claims of Divinity.

Also I'm afraid you are also incorrect that Jesus didn't say much that other luminaries hadn't already said. I believe that Jesus' teachings were revolutionary, not necessarily completely unique, but certainly the path to salvation imho.

Finally, I disagree that Jefferson ripped the heart out of the whole point of Christianity. The point of the teachings of Jesus are the power of cognitive love of all beings, even your enemies. Frankly I find it curious that you believe that Jesus is Divine but his teachings aren't the heart of the religion.

Struggles over the finer points of Jesus' divinity and Christian cosmology has caused extreme suffering in the world and has resulted in the exact opposite actions that Jesus intended (wars, torture, starvation). It sounds to me that it is this struggle may be what the OP is rebelling against and I think it would be worth his while to read what Jesus had to say.

antiskeptic

GreenMantis wrote: »

Also I'm afraid you are also incorrect that Jesus didn't say much that other luminaries hadn't already said. I believe that Jesus' teachings were revolutionary, not necessarily completely unique, but certainly the path to salvation imho.

But there's nothing at all unique in working your way to salvation (which I'm guessing is what you extract from Jesus' teaching). Every world religion provides salvation/enlightenment precisely that way.

Struggles over the finer points of Jesus' divinity and Christian cosmology has caused extreme suffering in the world and has resulted in the exact opposite actions that Jesus intended (wars, torture, starvation).

His being considered divine has also resulted in much good - wouldn't you agree.