Needing The Church

I'm not religious, but I think there's something missing here.

What about the people who go to church just for the sake of going to church and just go through the motions?

Why is "going to church" considered such a tenet of Christianity to the point that, as you said, anyone who doesn't is foolishly thinking they can live a godly life?

Why must the validity and worth of one's faith depend on going to a building in which to "practice" it?

Thinking the church to be a building is a common mistake. The church is the people, not the building.

When I was younger, I asked a youth pastor why going to church was necessary to living a good life as a Christian. He reminded me of a verse in the Bible (can't remember the reference) that says "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another..."

It boils down to accountability with other Christians, spending time with other like-minded individuals, and opportunities for service.

JP: Proverbs 27:17

Mark: I didn't say going to church is sufficient for living a godly life, only that it's necessary.

I see... so going to church once a week is akin to weekly meetings of any sort.. where like-minded individuals gather.

.. and if you don't go to the meetings, you're not really one of the group? You're on the outside looking in?

Seems like another way to exclude rather than include.

Mark:
You're still trying to think of it as a building.

It's not "another way" of doing anything. Now you're just looking for ways you can try to paint it that light. No one said you couldn't go; it is you that wants to be excluded for some crazy reason.

No, belonging to a church is not an exclusive, oppressive thing. But to get good things done, you gotta have standards.

Somehow I doubt that being a good Christian relies upon going to church.

(by "going to church" I'm not referring to the building... but to the gathering of like-minded people... the "weekly meeting")

michelle: "But to get good things done, you gotta have standards."

I agree... but going to (or, should I say, "belonging to") a church is not necessary for this to occur.

Turn it around, Mark: if you are unwilling to gather with people like yourself, if you honestly can't stand studying and talking about the ideals you profess to support, if the expression of those ideals drives you away...

You're a hypocrite. And that's what the "spiritual but not religious" claim amounts to. It's the rallying cry of those who want the reputation of sensitivity and enlightenment without all the troublesome practice of actual repentance or discipleship.

I don't gather with like-minded people... but I do study and talk about the ideals I support.

I know many good people who do good things that aren't a member of any church or organized religion. I know educators, parents, peer helpers, business people, and other people from other walks of life who do things that are for the good of society.

Mark: The vast majority of those things have no eternal value whatsoever, and are therefore essentially worthless.

The point isn't whether or not you're "part of the group", the point is that God has commanded Christians to be in fellowship with other believers, and that he has designed the church to be his tool on earth. There is no alternative for someone who wants to be used by God.

MW: "The vast majority of those things have no eternal value whatsoever, and are therefore essentially worthless."

What things have no eternal value? Are you talking about the "for the good of society" things?

As a side note, if there is a God who cares about our lives to the extent that most major religions claim, I think he/she/it would be pretty upset at all the stuff that gets carried out in his/her/its name.

Wars, killing, suffering, etc. are all examples of actions... of one group of "His creations" against another group of "His creations"... that have (and in some instances are) being done in the name of God.

Religious extremists do it (terrorism, cults) and other religious people do it (censorship, preachy moralizing, etc.).

Mark: Right. Things done "for the good of society" generally have no eternal value.

And yes, most "major religions" are wrong in claiming that what they do is God's will, and yes, God is probably quite upset by it.

MW: "Things done "for the good of society" generally have no eternal value."

I disagree. Giving to those in need, educating young people, and valuing other people are all things that have eternal value. They enrich society by fostering kindness and respect among people. This has positive effects on society for long after the initial act.

This is perhaps best demonstrated by the enormous impact that educators have on the lives of their students. When you inspire children to learn and teach them how to learn, you're giving them the means with which to enrich their lives in many ways.

The kicker, though, is that these things... educating, giving to those in need, respecting and valuing other people... do not require subscription to any religion. Non-religious educators aren't bad educators. Non-religious caring, kind, and generous people aren't bad examples of caring, kind, and generous people.

Mark, you seem to have tacitly conceded that point about spirituality and religiousity - you're now claiming that not all good civic impulses need to arise from religous impulses.

While I believe your current agrument, your abandoment of the original thread leads me to believe that you know your position was incorrect. After all, your first post established that you are not a part of a religious group, so your pronouncements about the benefits of such a group would seem to have no actual knowledge behind them.

As for your last claim about civic improvement and religious affiliation - nobody really made that claim, so I don't see what you're arguing about. But you've completely changed the basis for discussion, and doing so without being explicit is a dishonest debating tactic.

You've also tried to drag in the reprehensible behavior of some nominally Christian organizations (an ad hominem argument) - but failed to note that no society that explicitly denied the existence of God has failed to commit atrocities on a far grander scale. The evidence seems to show that the inclination to do evil is with humanity at all times, but that acknowledging God's Law is the best way to keep those impulses in check. Yet another advantage for the "religious" crowd - our restraint even protects the willfully blind among us.

MB: "Mark, you seem to have tacitly conceded that point about spirituality and religiousity."

You imply disparity in what I've said where none exists. Spirituality and religiousness are indeed different. Religiousness is about religions... commonly referred to as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Spirituality is less specific. Spirituality is about a belief that there's more to life than what we can perceive with our five senses. The absence or presence of one, the other, or both (spirituality or religiousness) is not something, in my opinion, that should be divisive.

MB: "As for your last claim about civic improvement and religious affiliation - nobody really made that claim, so I don't see what you're arguing about. But you've completely changed the basis for discussion, and doing so without being explicit is a dishonest debating tactic."

Actually, nothing I've said has changed any basis for anything. Everyone who chooses to respond is perfectly within the logical progression of conversation to bring the discussion back to whatever issue.. relevant to the current topic.. they want.

MB: "You've also tried to drag in the reprehensible behavior of some nominally Christian organizations (an ad hominem argument) - but failed to note that no society that explicitly denied the existence of God has failed to commit atrocities on a far grander scale. The evidence seems to show that the inclination to do evil is with humanity at all times, but that acknowledging God's Law is the best way to keep those impulses in check. Yet another advantage for the "religious" crowd - our restraint even protects the willfully blind among us."

Atrocities are atrocities. Just because one was less and the other more doesn't make the one that was less any better.

The inclination to "do evil" is indeed with us at all times. I'm of the philosophy, though, that it is personal responsibility and responsibility to society as a whole that is as valid and effective of a deterrent to "evil" as any religion is.

MW: Thanks for the reference

Mark: You sure do take a beating in here, man. Look, no one's trying to discount doing things that benefit society as a whole. I think that many times Christians ARE used to do this kind of work.

The thing is, no matter what the value of societal work one does, in the end, society is not eternal. God makes it clear to us in the Bible (you know, that book of hyperbole's you seem to dislike?) what things have eternal value, and what things do not.

There are many good things on earth that man can do. But not all of them really matter when viewed in the scope of eternity.

Mark:"The inclination to "do evil" is indeed with us at all times. I'm of the philosophy, though, that it is personal responsibility and responsibility to society as a whole that is as valid and effective of a deterrent to "evil" as any religion is."

There's no Utopia on the horizon. While I agree that if everyone on this planet would shape up and act responsibly, this world would be a far better place- Apart from God, and His church, it's a pipe dream.

Man is born into sin. Ignoring God's will, and instead trusting in one's own understanding to navigate a life of choices and decisions is ultimately fatal and fruitless.

Translation: We don't always know to do good, even if it comes from behind and bites us on the butt.

In the scope of eternity, our race itself (the human race) is insignificant at best.

What is the life of one race.. compared to the vast expanses of cosmic time?

.. and so "eternal" to us is a different scale. Eternal to us is measured by our own mortality and the longevity of any human civilization or empire.

In that scale, many good things are "eternally" important.

Mark: Regarding eternity, you're wrong in thinking that humanity isn't important. God created us specially in his image, and we each individually will be around for eternity, it's just a question of where. And that's what's eternally important: bringing others into fellowship with God by sharing the reality of sin and the redemption of Jesus Christ. Nothing else will have any lasting significant effect.

But speaking of the necessity of Christians attending church as just to "be around likeminded people" is woefully inadequate. We attend to worship corporately and to hear the Word preached to the Body.
An individual believer not regularly participating in a local congregation is, biblically speaking, like a hand (or any other body part) trying to survive cut off from the body.

We also go because it was commanded of us (Hebrews 10:25). Participating in a local congregation is crucial beyond the need to be with others like us. As Mark has pointed out, that puts churchgoing on par with any other civic entity or special interest club or group.
But participating in a local body is how individual believers play their part in the presence of Christ in the world. It is a calling and a privelege and is how the whole thing is designed to work.

We are called to follow Jesus in community. Notice Jesus called twelve disciples and they went where he did. He didn't just approach twelve guys, hand them a copy of the Torah (in The Message translation, naturally, so they could better "get it"), and tell them "good luck." He called them into a life together.
And the life of the Church Universal has always been about following Jesus together. You can't do that if you're willfully going it alone. (This absolves, of course, folks who live in areas where there are no churches or who are incapable for whatever reason of leaving their homes or something.)

Sorry for the ramble. I'm just surprised no one yet has probed the need for church in a believer's life more deeply yet.

MW: "Regarding eternity, you're wrong in thinking that humanity isn't important. God created us specially in his image, and we each individually will be around for eternity, it's just a question of where. And that's what's eternally important: bringing others into fellowship with God by sharing the reality of sin and the redemption of Jesus Christ. Nothing else will have any lasting significant effect."

Oh, humanity is indeed quite important.... and I never said it wasn't.

MW: "Nothing else will have any lasting significant effect."

Not so.

Education, for example, has a lasting effect that is quite significant. Education enriches a person's life.. making him or her more aware of his surroundings in every possible way. Educated parents pass on this importance of learning to their children. Even those who don't have children often pass these things on in other ways.

The results of this "lasting and significant effect" are evident in our daily lives... in everything from medicine, food production, entertainment, the arts, science and technology, etc.

BTW... I noticed that I'm probably the only non-religious person who posts on your site, Michael.

Interesting as a statistic.. and that's it.

Mark: Nah, you're hardly the only nonreligious person who comments here. Most of them don't wade into the directly religious threads, however. And you did definitely say "In the scope of eternity, our race itself (the human race) is insignificant at best."

... insignificant in the scope of eternity.

WARNING: RELIGION-FREE PARAGRAPH AHEAD...

Eternity is just the word we've picked for the concept of infinite time. Humanity is anything but infinite.. by any measure.

.. any non-religious measure, that is.

Your thread, "God's Purpose For Your Life" is definitely not one I'm going to get involved in. It's nothing but Bible-speak, and since I pledge no allegiance to the Bible, there's nothing to really talk about.

"WARNING: RELIGION-FREE PARAGRAPH AHEAD
Eternity is just the word we've picked for the concept of infinite time. Humanity is anything but infinite.. by any measure"

Awesome. Rules for debate. Sorry I can't run with them.

I agree with your symantecs on the word eternity, although I'm sure we didn't just fish it out of the air...but that's irrelevant.

Humanity, however, is anything but finite. God created man to live forever. The question is, individually, where exactly will we choose to live out eternity?

JP: "Humanity, however, is anything but finite. God created man to live forever."

That's a matter of faith... not fact.

No amount of belief makes something a fact.

Mark: Eternity is different from infinite time in the sense I'm using it, although I recognize that many people do use it that way. God exists outside of time, having created it, and we exist outside of time as well.

Everything you say is a matter of faith, as well, not fact, so I don't see how that observation is relevant to the discussion.

MW: How is what I've been saying "faith" instead of "fact"?

All of the good things I've mentioned DO occur... and DO occur without a religious backdrop.

Mark:"That's a matter of faith... not fact.

No amount of belief makes something a fact"

As you wish. Show me the facts that support man as a finite creature only...I suspect you cannot. Hence Michaels response that everything is faith, and not fact.s

Conversely, no amount of unbelief will change what is factual.

Oh... so that's what he was talking about. Maybe he should've made that more clear... instead of applying to broad "Everything you say" scope to it.

At any rate, there is no proof that man is a finite creature... and there is no proof that he is an infinite creature. That's the science of it.. no demonstrated proof one way or the other.

JP: "Conversely, no amount of unbelief will change what is factual."

Right... but what is factual here? .. with regards to mankind's infinite or finite status?

Mark:

"At any rate, there is no proof that man is a finite creature... and there is no proof that he is an infinite creature. That's the science of it.. no demonstrated proof one way or the other."

That's why it's a matter of faith.

"but what is factual here?"

For now, I think we were simply talking about man being finite or infinite. Sorry if I confused you.

Although we could expand back to the original topic, which was anyone who thinks they can "live a godly life without belonging to a local church is a fool."

Allow me to be a bit personal here. My experience at church is inconsistent at best, but it is the place I consistently experience what I perceive as God’s love. Lemme explain that last part first.

The “Church” is supposed to be God’s body here on earth. When I’m struggling with God and can’t perceive Him directly, I get it through His people. There’s lot of ways to perceive God directly, the description I like the best is “a gentle whisper”. (1 Kings 19:11-13 NLT) At church, I experience people loving me, as God’s surrogates, often when I don’t love myself. Personally, my history is that of depression, self destruction, self mutilation, and suicide attempts – so the compassion is appreciated and significant. Sure this is something I can get on a Tuesday even instead of a Sunday morning. The obedience of going (especially when I don’t want to) is a reminder to me of the decision I made and strengthens me in that decision, hopefully for 7 more days.

As for my experience being inconsistent, well we’re all only people. I usually get a lot out of the worship service. Something about the music for me really pops. It’s really something when the congregation is singing louder than the band in front. But that’s what does it for me. I’ve got some pet peeves too, and every once in a while someone giving a sermon will hit one. When that happens, I usually shut down and don’t get as much outta the sermon as I could. Others might though. Then there are other times I’m distracted by my week, someone I’ve brought to church, a girl, or anything else that really all in my head. But if I can clear my head and be receptive for the hour or two I’m there, church is usually worth getting up at 9 and spending 2 hours on a Sunday.

I just stumbled across this forum, but for some reason it interested me. lets just take a step back and look at church and how it relates to society. personally, i don't believe people are born to sin, but that tendency is a product of their upbringing/society/ whatever you may call it. However, religion often prevents people from "sinning" or as I like to call it being a dick. Giving to the poor, helping the sick, not killing or stealing, these are all good things. Furthermore, a person's capacity to do good things is increased when people come together and decide collectively as a group to do good things. These groups may be church groups, or they may not be. However, church groups often do give people the means to help. That being said, I think it is more powerful to do something to help people when it comes out of genuine carerather than an earthly attempt to reserve a spot inside the pearly gates. As far as the importance of surrounding oneself with like-minded people goes, I see that as a detriment to Religion. If you are to "sharpen" eachother, wouldn't it be better to surround yourself with those who disagree with you to sharpen your own personal debate tactics, and fortify or possibly change your own ideas? Certainly this would not accomplish much in terms of actual social action, but it seems like it would help on a personal level. Maybe as practice if people started going to other churches other than their own once a month that would lead to better understanding... As with any group dedicated to the service of others, the church can provide a great means for service. It can give people hope, a reason to live, and a rough guide to leading a good life. The danger I see is when people use religion as an excuse to "carry out god's will" and kill other people. or to unify and profess hate against groups of people based on race or sexuality (see homophobia). People who don't think about religion may often find themselves falling into this trap of faith conformity. I think it is more of a personal commitment to the good of all people that makes a person, not where he or she goes on sunday mornings. As for the notion that one has to be a christian to go to heavan, I think that's just crazytalk. Are you going to say that Gandhi is not up there?