number3

Hopefully a few of you will have seen the film "Stigmata" and I'm wondering what the thesists position is on this. It goes without saying that it is a movie and therefore fictional but it does make a good point.

For those who haven't seen it here the point:

The film states that an extra gospel has been found written in Aramaic and supposedly by jesus himself. The church trys its hardest to hide this gospel as it states that there is no need for churches and priests etc and jesus is 'all around us'.

So how do you justifiy the need for endless churches, priests and riches? Deep down you all must believe there is no need for these things if you truly have found your god.?????

Points please.


Number #3

Amos

No I haven't seen the movie but I have always argued that it is a contradiction for Christians to go to church because there are no churches in the New Jerusalem. Christians who have followed the footsteps of Jesus and have been crucified like him should have cleansed their own temple towards understanding and be set free from the law and religious indoctrination. If they fail to do this "they will have severed themselves from Christ and fallen from Gods favor" (Gal.5:4).

Religion is for sinners and for sinners only and therefore not for Christians. This in turn is why Catholics are Catholic and not Christians in the way protestants claim they are Christians. The evidence of this is that the "born again" message is not a tool used by the Catholic church. In fact, that was the primary cause for the Reformation when Luther wanted to put "nesting boxes" in the churches instead of confessionals.

Catholicsm is a "hands off" religion wherein salvation is the cause to flee from religion like a squacking chicken that flees its nest after it has laid its first egg.

The riches of the Church do not come from the collection plates but from its far superior insights into human nature.

Magus55

Could you clarify your question? There is a reason a lot of Christians object to the Catholic church. Its a business, focused more on money and power than God ( i'm referring to the church, not necessarily all Catholics). As to the movie, while I liked it a lot, it has a lot of Gospel of Thomas influence, ( and of course Catholicism).

NeoApostate

I saw the movie. Funny thing is, while there was this huge conspiracy to hide this lost gospel in the film due to it's message, when the message was finally recieved it was fairly orthodox.

The idea of the 'kingdom of heaven being inside you' complete with references to the spring of water flowing out of your heart can be found in the accepted canon gospels.

I would think that most Christians whom you would ask would quickly tell you that the organized church isn't the religion in and of itself, and that it's a 'personal relationship,' but will still emphasis the benefits of having fellowship in organized religion (as Paul preached.) I've certainly not meet any Christians who believed a stone building is required to experience God.

I wouldn't say the movie said anything new or controversial; instead it simply reiterated something that many Christians may sometimes forget.

number3

This is not about individual religons (hence the fact this is logged under general religous discussions). This is making a broad point about the need for so many churches / priests / vicars / rabbis / gold / money etc when these capitalist principals surely contradict the messages of all religons.

Why do we even have churches at all???

Who pays for them? is it via collection plates (i doubt that) or are the courtesy of the tax-payer. If latter is the case - how can a christian/catholic/jew/muslim justify the money spent on a place of worship when children are dying all over the world?

seebs

FWIW, after many years of ignoring churches, I've started going to one. There is no pastor or minister. Donations are accepted, and the congregation has, over the course of a number of years, managed to buy a place to meet. However, it's not exactly swank, because it doesn't need to be.

number3

That's a nice example, but doesn't really address my point. we all know massive and highly expensive places of worship exist of all over the modern world. Your shed story is lovely but not really relevant.......because that does not reflect the majority.

seebs

I think it's very relevant.

How do I justify it? I don't. I don't participate in it, I don't contribute to it, and I have chosen to worship in fellowship with other people who feel the same way.

This is to say, I don't justify at all, because I think it is unjustified.

So, yes, I agree, there is no need for all those things, and I wish the people doing them would spend the money doing something useful. I can respect the occasional beautiful cathedral as a work of art, but the totally artless, merely expensive, things, the private jets... These do not, to me, bespeak any contact with Jesus, who once told a rich man to sell everything he had and give the money to the poor.

number3

So you're saying although you don't agree with it, you let it happen and accept it.

Which isn't much different from saying "I don't agree but everyone else is doing it so its ok". Lucky we're just talking about riches and not murder!.

But is your view point the one adopted by the majority? This is what I'm trying to find out. If so how come all of you let it happen if you believe the opposite.

I think its like an ECO-WARRIOR and his eco buddies believing that CFC's damage the world yet continuing to use CFCs because "everyone does". Utter hypocrisy or stupity - you decide.

seebs

Er, what would you have me do? Stop them by force?

Are you stopping them?

What are you doing to oppose this waste, that I'm not doing?

I think you've rather missed the point, here.

I don't do it.

I reject it, I tell people not to do it, I draw their attention to the ways in which it is wrong, and I advise alternatives.

What else, short of force, can I do?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that J. Random Christian has any authority over any other Christian.

If Oral Roberts wants to go on TV claiming that God's running an extortion scheme, we can complain, we can say he's wrong, and so on, but we can't, so far as I can tell, keep him from doing it, any more than you can.

Except in that case, the person is doing the thing he objects to. I'm not. I'm not spending thousands and thousands of dollars on luxuries for some rich guy in a three-piece suit who says he can sell God.

You seem to be under the impression that I have supported these people; I haven't.

What, exactly, would you like me to do? Not send them money? All over it. Tell people I think it's a scam? Been doing it for years. Go elsewhere? Done that. Shoot them? I think that would be wrong.