This is a philosophy board, not a theology board. If you’re going to make statements, works twords your end, not from it.
Christianity is the belief and trust of Jesus’s teachings his philosophies and faiths, which is not found just in a book nor by someone interpreting this book for you. The different title of churches just follow different interpretations. Fellowship and following are the only reasons to attend churches. Worship or prayers can be accomplished anywhere for a Christian. Jesus was not about the bible, his was so much more then following words, his teachings were about following good and growth of humanity. Not leading people blindly down a path of specific faith. When the churches turned christianity into orginizations they removed much of the meanings behind Jesus’s words.
Kris
You seem to be describing a sort of New Age Christendom based on consolation, fellowship, and inspirational thoughts.
There is nothing wrong with this for those that are content with it. But this man made creation cannot be considered Christianity for those needing the experience of its initial purpose.
Lets see, Jesus’s philosophys and beliefs are not Christian? Then what are they? Where in the Bible did Jesus say; OK these books are consolidated together and you must follow all the words? Its not at the end nor is it at the beginning of the bible. Gods words as translated by man are powerful. But I think listening to jesus makes more sense then some guy saying he wrote the book as God told him to write it.
Jesus used his own words and thoughts rarely claiming God’s words. He specified God’s intentions and wishes and that was it.
But is not Christianity based upon Jesus Christ. It does not say God Christ because that would not make sense would it? Jesus Christ is followed by Christians of all believers of Jesus, they just translate different.
What is so hertical about only following Jesus’s philosophys and not the bible’s words? What is so blasphemous to His father?
And how is what I said become:New Age Christendom based on consolation, fellowship, and inspirational thoughts. and not the initial purpose.
Why don’t you tell me what Christianity’s initial purpose was? I kind believed that it was educating right from wrong (just to keep it simple). I kind of thought the 10 commandments and the deadly sins sort covered everything simply, and the rest of the book was examples.
Hell I could be wrong. I am not a Christian anyway I don’t follow the bible nor the faith nor any faith. I just think the 10 commandements and the 7 sins are pretty much all you need to believe in to grow as far as religious rules. Well except for the one that says thou shalt have no other god before me, that one I find shows god has a hell of a sense of humor.
Having read the bible I do find it very interesting historically and anthropologically interesting. but, thats it.
Another important theological question for all beliefs is; If you are so intent on listening to words from the past how are you going to hear the future communications? or the present ones? It kind of is like the ostrich burying its head in the sand. Don’t you think?
Hi Kris
Many would think what Simone is saying is naive and just the utterances of a dreamer. I don’t believe so simply because she was so reality oriented
All I can do is explain why I believe that Christianity is far more than consolation, fellowship, and inspirational thoughts.
The purpose of Christianitie’s appearance and actualization by Jesus, as I’ve come to appreciate it, was to provide the opportunity of re-birth for those open to it. Rather than consoling people, its purpose was to awaken people to the meaninglessness of life on earth for Man who was created for a greater purpose than that of the rest of organic life on earth…
This is a very vivid inner experience that is separate from attempts at consolation, fellowship, or inspirational thoughts of the future. It is from this conscious inner experience of “carrying ones cross” that the incentive comes to sacrifice life’s attachments for the purpose of re-birth.
But the Bible is a psychological rather than historical text referring to the psychology of the human condition itself.
Many people believe that it is through new ideas that people grow spiritually. I believe it is the opposite and real growth comes through remembering what has been forgotten. While empirical knowledge can be new, human psychology was always known and our task is to remember. The more one remembers through spiritual work, the more the ancient ideas begin to make sense.
I know this is hard to swallow but if you are interested, read this following link on esoteric Christianity and see if it makes any sense to you.
hermes-press.com/Perennial_T … ianity.htm
If you agree that Jesus spoke in parables and why he did so, you can see how hard it is to take the teaching literally. it must be absorbed psychologically.
Obviously, as explained in the article, the tendency becomes to secularize it and make it a source of power for authorities. This is the great harm of Christendom.
I believe there is a science to re-birth as indicated by Atwood but it is only for those with the need otherwise it appears ludicrous and does more harm than good. The exoteric church is unaware of such things. It is even striking that they no longer teach how to pray. It even seems odd to suggest such a thing.
So, if you’d like, read the article and feel free to question. But the more you see in it, the more, I believe, you will see the difference between Christianity (re-birth) and the secular callings with emphasis on “good and bad” during ones secular life related to heaven and hell and its many expressions as Christendom.
Pretty much what I said just in more detail and different words I think you might be a tad defensive about it. You see my phrases as ones that seperate it not pull it together. So I find those teachings in a different light or thought it does not mean that it is different. And may I repeat I do not am not a Christian. Not in any sense of the word. That I can see differing positions does not make me a believer. Just a JOAT.
There are 7 types of churches spoken of in Revelations. It looks like only 2 out of the 7 will be saved and the rest destroyed. This will tell you that most of the Christians will be wrong at the end of times.
I can tell you one church that will be destroyed. The Catholic Church is labeled as the Great Harlot in the Book of Revelations and will be Destroyed. The Bible identifies this Church with great detail. Its Scary they with all those people in that religion they cant even figure it out. But the Bible does say that if possible the very elect shall be deceived and the truth revealed unto the babes.
If your a Christian… then your a Christian… as far as I can tell all of the denominations stray from Christ in one fashion or another. Some worse than others… find the one that strays the least!
Interesting Astral, I never knew that is what it meant.
The book of Mormon, or that church tells us the Catholic Church is going to the wrong path, that is why the book of Mormon is revealed. As it was said by Joseph Smith.
Can you explain to me in the book of revelation about Philadelphia?
best?
I am not understanding what you mean? I have not fully managed to understand all of Revelations.
Are you refering to Chapter 3:7~12?
Philedelphia if I am not mistake is refering to an area near palestine/Isreal or some other place close to that… not geographically certain.
To be a Christian is to become a Jew. So yes… being a Jew is not necessarily a blood lineage. It is also to be a servant of Christ. Whats all in a name right? So Jews who do not believe in Christ are not really Jews and those who do are the true Jews. Those are the ones I am willing to bet are of the Church of Philadelphia and will be saved from the hour of temptation.
But hey… as I have said… I not too sure about this… so dont run around quoting me on it or anything… This is just a preliminary thought. Feel free to shoot any holes you can find in it. It will help me to understand.
- forgot to add… yes there may indeed be the 7 specific churches… but it does not mean that a Church in some other place does not fall under the category. These I am sure are using these 7 churches as models and in some manor filing all the other churches under one of the 7 categories and kinda judging them lump sum style perhaps. Once again… speculation but I’m kinda on the sure side or it at least seems reasonable to me so far.
The Brand that is immune to freezer burn of course. Cause nothing is worse then freezer burn!! 
Yes that is what I am refering. Then why does my bible says Philadelphia, not Philedelphia? Where does the name come from? The invention of William Penn or is it some sort of prophecy?
There is an old place named philadelphia around there. Perhaps the letter a instead of e is a clerical error? Names change slightly on occasion.
Take Palestine for example… that is Philistine. It got changed my some prick with power who didnt like the pronunciation… or so I have heard.
And about Bibles… unless you are reading the original untranslated scriptures, I would recommend sticking with the King James version. Its bad enough having been translated into engrish… already knowing that people piss on the language and create slang, and outright missuse words ultimately changing their meanings. When this happens translations of things get more and more inaccurate on top of how hard it is to make 2 different languages match!
What so good about King James version?
Most scholars agree that it is the closest most accurate translation. Which is why you find it being the dominant translation in Use.
I have already seen large changes in the bible with other translations… the meanings of things are changed. And that is a terrible situation to be in. How would you like to be given bad information? Some questionable clerical errors and a couple of misstranslations are mentioned in the King James Version. But the general consensus has been that they are not significant enough or often enough to go on a tangent about.
This does not mean that ALL other translations are worthless I simply want to warn people to be at least suspicious of the quality first.
Coca-Cola! Why? It’s brought nothing but love! [size=75]…and all those other sweet sweet things…[/size] 
And diabetes.
It is possible that King James is the most accurate translation, it is possible it is still with flaws.
Since the majority or scholars believe, it is no doubt you also are a sheep.
Nothing can be accurate except ye be the founder or author himself.
I’ll leave what information I have, if I happen to look further, then nature will take its effect.
thank you for some insights of the revelation though. 
Ha ha… you obviously failed to understand I have already mentioned that the King James version already has errors in its translation. Remember being the closest does not mean 100% accurate. It only means the closest. And since I dont know how to read the original language I have no other choice than to rely upon many of the others accessments.
This hardly makes me a sheepish person. I exist within my limits just as you do. And for you to make such a comment only shows your ignorance.
Also I would like to point out something else. The bible is not what imparts Wisdom. It is merely a guide. But hey… if you really knew so much you would have already known this right?
The bible can withstand some errors and poor translations so long as they relegate to just minor clerical errors. But massive changes like the socalled New International type or those teenage types appear to change a lot of content and do infact change the meanings. A translation from english to engrish is very bad.
Astral~
youre the man . 