Can you be a Christian without belonging to a church?

I believe you can be, but if I'm right, that would mean the "End of Evangelism" meme which is being launched today will necessarily be wrong.

It seems clear that the evangelism trend in the US and third world is away from the church. To many evangelists, going to church is less important than accepting JC as one's savior. Right? That seems to me a stronger meme--and a key reason why Christianity hasn't died and probably won't die for a long time--than liberal and mainstream Christians probably wish it were.

PS: A related question: Can Christianity survive without churches?

...

Yes, I'm Christian.

Why the hell does it matter how I "do" Easter? You assume the ceremony and the pomp and circumstance is what is important. It isn't. I am far more interested in what Easter represents and symbolizes. And that is something that I can remember and celebrate everyday.

Religion is by definition something that is ritualized, done repeatedly, over and over. At most Christian churches, Easter is a big deal because of the ritual. To me, it's an interesting question how people who aren't connected with a religious community observe religious holidays.

consider their faith a religion. To me, Christianity is not a religion. I view my faith as a relationship with God. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't give a rats ass about religion and its ceremonies and rituals and rules. All the crap that comes with organizaed religion is irrelevant. Just like Easter ceremonies.

Where does Christ enter into it?

It's ironic that you feel such contempt for the organized religion that made it possible for you to be a Christian. I mean, if it hadn't been so well organized and routinized and ritualized over the millennia, it probably would not have survived to be transmitted to you.

that my faith reflects that of the organized Christian church - and has been made possible by the church - but you're wrong.

Christ made it possible for me to have a relationship with God - not the church. That relationship is not dependent upon ritual or ceremony or creed or community - or Scripture. That relationship is dependent upon only one thing - God's desire to have a relationship with me - a relationship that I believe is available to others who pursue it. My faith. My belief.

I don't give a damn whether or not you or the church or anyone else agrees or approves. I do not seek to proselytize nor do I patronize those who do. I do not tolerate disrespect from those who do not share my beliefs. And I am most definitely not obligated to explain and justify my beliefs to anyone's satisfaction.

Instead, you want to use that answer as a tool to further your inquisition. I'm not playing your game.

I respect you enough to not try to impose my faith on you. It appears that you unwilling or unable to extend the same level of respect to folks who do not share your own beliefs.

I don't give a damn what you think of my faith. Therefore, I have no need to justify it or defend it.

It's richly ironic.

Then perhaps you would care to explain why you refused to accept and respect my answer and chose to follow up with an inquisition......On second thought, never mind. You can skip the explanation. I'm thinking you will not be attending my next dinner party.

Best I can tell you are either ignorant of the very nature of faith or you are intentionally disrespectful. By definition, faith is incapable of rational and objective proof.

You can hold whatever beliefs you choose - and judge them by whatever standards you deem appropriate - but you are not entitled to apply your standards to anyone else. You have no more right to judge my faith by your standards than the mega church preacher has to impose his standards on our national community. Get over it. You can believe what you want - but you must respect the right of everyone else to do the same. And if you refuse to do that then I would suggest that perhaps you have far more in common with that mega church pastor than you think.

I'm not playing your game.

Easter is a big deal to Christians because of Christ's ascension into Heaven.

The ritual is secondary. (Though, admittedly, important to many/most Christians.)

Can it be? I can't imagine.

I mean, in the Catholic faith, which I am, it's an integral part. But why does it have to be for anyone who claims to be Christian? Why can't they mark the day on their own without mass. For many Christian denominations, I believe it's not even a popular church going day. So what other types of rituals do you mean? Easter Egg Hunt? That's not a particularly CHRISTIAN ritual. It's just something fun for kids to do. A family meal? A party?

I might go with my Catholic wife to her church, I might go to the local Episcopalian church...but usually I just eat Easter Eggs and a bloody great big roast of something...(after the obligatory Champagne Brunch of course... ;-) )

Good Friday is the holiest of holies for me though...the resurrection was just the gravy...

Not implying anything, I hope you understand. I'm truly just curious.

I think it is an interesting question, considering the idea in the End of Evangelism article I cited in the OP that the failure of modern evangelism to impart the full content of the religion to its converts and disciples is a sign of its impending death. The way religion usually imparts those articles of faith is through community and ritual.

---in one's heart& with one's family---Christianity in and of itself does not consist of the church ritual. Christianity is the faith...not the church.

I realize, from reading down to here, that you will likely not accept this response either, because you apparently have no use for anything or any one who calls him/herself a person of faith, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

As for Christianity, didn't Jesus himself prefer those who prayed in privately in closets over those who prayed loudly on street corners?

:headbang:
rocktivity

And his intent was not to ensure that passersby would overhear and be impressed with his piety.

;)
rocktivity

Can you give me the reference? Thanks.

Look up Sermon on the Mount. It's in there.

Not strictly a prayer. When he went to pray in Gethsemane, he left his disciples behind and prayed alone.
It's rather disingenuous to claim he prayed from the side of a mount to attract attention, as the religious orders of the day did.

:shrug:

:hi:

?

I say you could. Same for any religion really.

If we define "church" as "community" rather than house of worship: can religions really be sustained without sociability?

Less focus on organized denominations and more freedom
for people of like mind to just gather together if they
feel like it. It may be that new types of churches will
emerge without all of the hierarchy and crap that drives
so many away. Just having a party and inviting people
who have the same kind of attitudes could be the start
of a new sort of "church."

n.t.

Certain ancient works have survived millenia thanks to it.

No "community" called Abraham and Moses. You don't think God can call those who are open to hearing?

Abraham and Moses weren't islands unto themselves. *Of course* a community called them (assuming they really existed, of course). Judaism is all about community and belonging to a people.

of course. They were not called by a community. They were called OUT from their communities.
No one else was there at the burning bush. Abraham likewise had a lone revelation.
Judaism didn't exist before Abraham, dude.

Some think Judaism didn't exist until the 9th century BC, a thousand or so years after Abraham supposedly lived.

Where are these stories of Abraham and Moses to be found? Why is *law* so central to them?

The fact that it is a religion of the book speaks directly to my point that Judaism is fundamentally communal. Look at the way it's practiced. You know what a minyan is, right? Can't have a service without a minyan.

I give will be based on my understanding of the Bible. Period. Not, what "some think".
I'm attempting thoughtful discussion, but it appears you are not.
And, I won't be taking any flights of your fantasies.

Jesus, whom you may or may not believe existed, showed the Jewish religion as practiced at the time of his coming to be just as corrupt as what we have today in Christian churches.

I'm sensing defensiveness. I don't know what I'm saying that's making you defensive. I'm looking at religions from outside, admittedly, going on what I've read about them. My knowledge of early Judaism, for what it's worth, is based on books and articles I've read about archaelogy in Palestine and Israel. I'll look for the name of a particularly interesting book to recommend if you're interested. You can judge then if I'm talking fantasy.

Where are these stories of Abraham and Moses to be found?

And, pretend you're seeking thoughtful response?

You may suggest whatever you like. Nova has a few shows online that cover the material to which you probably refer. Interesting. However, if you don't understand that to a Believer in Jesus Christ, Judaism was established by YAHWEH via Abraham, any discussion will be handicapped.

any discussion will be handicapped, I agree.

A "religion about"? :shrug:

By and for the Jewish people. What did you think it was about?

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah." Yet the authors deny that their arguments should be construed as compromising the Bible's power. Only in the 18th century--"when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life"--did readers begin to view the Bible as a source of empirically verifiable history. For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community." --Michael Joseph Gross --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly
Finkelstein, director of Tel Aviv University's excavations at Megiddo (ancient Armageddon), and Silberman, author of a series of successful and intriguing books on the political and cultural dimensions of archeology, present for the first time to a general audience the results of recent research, which reveals more clearly that while the Bible may be the most important piece of Western literature--serving concrete political, cultural and religious purposes--many of the events recorded in the Old Testament are not historically accurate. Finkelstein and Silberman do not aim to undermine the Bible's import, but to demonstrate why it became the basic document for a distinct religious community under particular political circumstances. For example, they maintain that the Exodus was not a single dramatic event, as described in the second book of the Bible, but rather a series of occurrences over a long period of time. The Old Testament account is, according to the authors, neither historical truth nor literary fiction, but a powerful expression of memory and hope constructed to serve particular political purposes at the time it was composed. The authors claim quite convincingly that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became radically different regions even before the time of King David; the northern lands were densely populated, with a booming agriculture-based economy, while the southern region was sparsely populated by migratory pastoral groups. Furthermore, they contend, "we still have no hard archaeological evidence--despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur--that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam." Fresh, stimulating and highly engaging, this book will hold greatest appeal for readers familiar with the Bible, in particular the Old Testament--unfortunately, a shrinking percentage of the population. 16 pages of b&w photos not seen by PW. Agent, Carol Mann.


From the publisher:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/9780684869131

Description

Is the Bible true? For the last hundred and fifty years a war has been waged over the historical reliability of the Hebrew scriptures. Recent dramatic discoveries of biblical archaeology have cast serious doubt on the familiar account of ancient Israel and the origins of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Though the Bible credits Abraham as the first human to realize there is only one God, we now know that there is no evidence for monotheism for many centuries after the reported time of Abraham. Nor is there any archaeological evidence for the Exodus, for Joshua's conquest of Canaan, or for the vast "united monarchy" of David and Solomon.

In The Bible Unearthed two leading scholars, an archaeologist and a historian, combine an exhilarating tour of the field of biblical archaeology with a fascinating explanation of how and why the Bible's historical saga differs so dramatically from the archaeological finds. They explain what the Bible says about ancient Israel and show how it diverges sharply from archaeological reality. They then offer a dramatic new version of the history of ancient Israel, bringing archaeological evidence to bear on the question of when, where, and why the Bible was first written.

What do we know about the time of the ancient patriarchs? When did monotheism first arise? When and where did the first Israelites appear? How did the people of Israel first come to occupy the Promised Land? How extensive was David and Solomon's kingdom? When and why did Jerusalem become the capital of ancient Israel? All of these questions have new answers.

As to why the answers are so new, Finkelstein and Silberman draw on evidence from decades of archaeological work and dozens of digs in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria, to explain that the key early books of the Bible were first codified in the seventh century BCE, hundreds of years after the core events of the lives of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan were said to have taken place.

Yet the ultimate message of The Bible Unearthed is not just a correction of the record. Instead, it is a unique and fascinating explanation of the origins of the Bible. The Bible's newly identified authors, threatened with political crisis and the intimidation of nearby empires, crafted a brilliant document, a set of stories and teachings that would eventually appeal to the faithful beyond the boundaries of any particular kingdom.

The Bible Unearthed will forever change how you think about the world's greatest book.


More information about the book is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

You'll be interested in more recent archeology finds as well.
(I haven't viewed the entire list yet.)

*hyper links added as text
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

Senior Executive Producer's Story
In this FAQ, Paula S. Apsell explains NOVA's approach to covering biblical archeology.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/apsell.html

The Foundation of Judaism
Shaye Cohen looks at how a pagan practice became a religion devoted to one God.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/cohen.html

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
William Dever says that attempts to "prove the Bible" are misguided.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/dever.html

Writers of the Bible
Michael Coogan sees the Bible as an anthology of texts composed over centuries.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/coogan.html

Moses and the Exodus
Carol Meyers offers a new and surprising view of the iconic exodus from Egypt.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/meyers.html

The Palace of David
Eilat Mazar has unearthed what she believes is the royal house of King David.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/mazar.html

Origins of the Written Bible
William Schniedewind charts the rise of literacy in the Israelite world, making Holy Scripture possible.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/written.html


Just a sample.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/dever.html

Q: According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

"It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods, we archeologists haven't much to say."

Are we to become unbelievers if we can't prove that Abraham ever lived? What is the story about? It's a story about freedom and faith and risk. Does it matter exactly how Abraham and his clan left, and when they arrived in Canaan, or where they settled? What really matters is that Abraham is seen later by Jews and Christians as the father of the faithful.

Abraham moves out on faith to a land he has never seen. You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. So it's an astonishing story. Is it true? It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate.
~~~
A United Monarchy

Q: When did Israel become a state?

Dever: According to the biblical scheme of events, there was a United Monarchy for about a hundred years in the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Then a civil war brought about the division of the country into Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern kingdom. Now, some skeptics today have argued that there was no such thing as a United Monarchy. In short, there was no David.

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David.

Most of us mainstream archeologists also have now dated a series of monumental royal constructions to the 10th century—the famous gates at Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer. And we have in the Bible, in First Kings 9:15-17, the famous description of Solomon's construction of gates of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. So I would argue for a 10th-century United Monarchy.
~~~

btw .. When the Vatican makes public its *confidential* library, we will have much more to consider.

<<From your post>>

<<Dever: One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

<<"It disturbs some people that, for the very early periods, we archeologists haven't much to say."

<<Are we to become unbelievers if we can't prove that Abraham ever lived? What is the story about? It's a story about freedom and faith and risk. Does it matter exactly how Abraham and his clan left, and when they arrived in Canaan, or where they settled? What really matters is that Abraham is seen later by Jews and Christians as the father of the faithful.

<<Abraham moves out on faith to a land he has never seen. You have to think of how perilous the journey would have been had it really taken place. We are talking about a journey of several hundred miles around the fringes of the desert. So it's an astonishing story. Is it true? It is profoundly true, but it's not the kind of truth that archeology can directly illuminate. >>



There's no proof Abraham lived--no archaelogical evidence for Abraham. Thus, for thousands of years unto this very day, people have taken on faith the Abraham story.

To a nonbeliever, such as myself, it seems likely that the Abraham story is a legend, possibly based on something true, but certainly more fictional than historic, given the archaelogic evidence in the earth below Canaan. I believe less, of course, in what the faithful view as the significance of the patriarchs to themselves and supposedly all people in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world. But I am very interested in the question of what really happened and why it had the effect it had on history.

A believer might offer that the present day versions of the three faiths are part of the same historical narrative begun by the authors of the story of the patriarchs. I see something much more complicated going on--not a linear narrative, not a grand and stately epic, not one single story, but a chaotic nexus of many millions of stories intersecting in space and time. I'm much more interested in understanding what really happened at all these points in history than in the meaning of the myths about these epochs--the "profound" truths the faithful are so fascinated by. I want to know about the people who really walked on the earth and why they told themselves the stories they told. I don't believe those stories should be taken at face value, but I do think they're worth thinking about.

that you post a large portion of my post, as if I didn't read my own post?

This is a thread you started asking about the reality/possibility of solo Christians.

For your other interests, perhaps a different forum at DU would be the better target audience.
I don't debate my beliefs with non-believers. Terrible waste of time.

I quoted your post (standard operating procedure in most forums), because it was what I wanted to go into deeper.

I'm just astonished by the defensiveness and the presumption about my motives that I'm getting from you and some other Christians in this thread. If you don't want to debate and discuss, you're perfectly free not to. No one's pointing a gun to your head and making you reply to me.

Maybe you should wonder about your own motives. And your defensiveness.

on why you might be perceiving defensiveness and presumption.

I'm glad you asked the question, because I was able to learn more about some of our fellow DUers who like myself don't ritually worship. Or worship ritual. That seems to be something beyond your comprehension as well. Lots for you to think about.

And I appreciate the thought people put into their answers. I am genuinely baffled how some of these subthreads took the hostile turn they took. I asked a simple question: How do you celebrate Easter. I asked it because it seemed to me it would answer a question about how someone who is not a member of a community celebrates Easter. To me it's an interesting question because it gets at the question of how much ritual and worship are parts of religion/spirituality/belief. Isn't that an interesting question to you? If not, what are *you* doing in this forum, let alone this thread? That's something for you to think about.

I'll add a couple of thoughts here.

I don't intend to put up defensive walls to those who are willing to thoughtfully discuss. If I didn't have at least some shred of respect for you, I would never reply to your posts. There are a few at DU that have earned that distinction. I assume others who reply also find at least a perceived opening for something other than a laid trap set to ensnare one's time and effort invested to articulate on abstract and controversial themes in a less than ideal setting. So, when we sense an effort to derail and take the conversation on theretofore hidden paths, those of us who value our efforts will resist.

Let's go back to the OP.

Can you be a Christian without belonging to a church?
I believe you can be, but if I'm right, that would mean the "End of Evangelism" meme which is being launched today will necessarily be wrong.

It seems clear that the evangelism trend in the US and third world is away from the church. To many evangelists, going to church is less important than accepting JC as one's savior. Right? That seems to me a stronger meme--and a key reason why Christianity hasn't died and probably won't die for a long time--than liberal and mainstream Christians probably wish it were.

PS: A related question: Can Christianity survive without churches?

You've ignored my other posts in the thread explaining that holidays aren't inherently Christian. I have no explanation for that, other than you reject the explanation.

Christ established no holidays/festivals. If any rituals were established by him, they were Baptism and Communion/Last Supper. Someone above stated that Easter equals his ascension, when in fact it is said to represent his resurrection. They are not the same event. As his appearance is recorded in the Gospels, he didn't say, "Do this in remembrance of me" at that time. At his ascension, he did say he would be seen again. Again, no mention of ritual.

Secondly, it appears that your perception holds that "evangelism" and "Christianity" are one and the same. Many of us do not believe in mass marketing the faith, which is a function of evangelism. The OP seems to use the terms interchangeably. You need to separate the two. Without doing so, confusion will remain.

The church did not create Christ or his followers (the church), so your PS question is confused by the former misconceptions. What is the real question? Can evangelism survive without churches? Can Christianity survive without evangelism? Can churches survive without evangelism?

In this instance, the sidetrack on ritual and holidays is relevant, I think, to my main question, which is really about the future of Christianity. If the article about the End of Evangelism is true (and I don't at all hold that Christianity and evangelism are the same, or I wouldn't be asking this question), then what will Christianity of the future look like? Will it be churchless--meaning, will it be without a central authority, an orthodoxy, a priesthood, and all those other things churches imply? And if so, can it survive? I said in my first post that I thought it would. All it needs is people who call themselves Christian. But what does that mean, really?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it can't survive without a church.

I'm really asking what is the nature of Christianity? What's the nature of religion? I'm hearing a lot of resistance to the idea that Christianity must be a religion, to the very idea of "religion" from Christians.

This is fascinating, when you think about it. If Christianity is not a religion, what is it? If it can be churchless, then what is it that churches provide that Christianity can do without? These are not simple questions. It seems pretty clear to me that you can't answer them without looking at how Christianity is practiced and expressed, and I don't know how else to answer it than to look at things like ritual and celebration, which are the outward forms of religion that make them distinguishable from each other.

Of course, what a religion contains also distingushes it: the objects of its worship, the words it worships by and meditates on. If I understand you and others in this thread correctly, you're saying it's the content of Christianity that can be preserved without a church, without ritual, without religion. That remains to be seen.

I'll continue in another post.

those who hold to denominations will have different answers from those of us who do not.

John 4:1
20
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

If my neighbors are Christian and we greet each other, that makes us socialable.

Do you know which among you are Christians? Does it matter which among you are?

not a building or parties. I'm a non-religious Christian. The NT eschews denominations. I would enjoy meeting with others, but so far, their "doctrines" and traditions leave me out. I'm praying that I will meet others of like heart and mind.

I'm happy to hear that the evangelical movement is expected to lose power. They shouldn't be involved in politics. I do not believe 'evangelism' is a proper activity for the church. The house churches will probably be the mainstay for NT Christians, as the article relates.

Jesus celebrated the Jewish festivals. The so-called Christian festivals were adopted to better align the pagan converts. There is nothing inherently "Christian" about them.

even though it's written from an "insider" PoV. I tend to call them all revivalists and that's their problem. Convert em and forget em. It's all about saving the soul not about building a lasting community with decent values. The introduction of politics via televangilism like the 700 club was really the poison pill. Religion + politics = politics everytime. It destroys the core good values and that's exactly what we are seeing now.

Never really got into going to church per se but I've not abandoned
my Christian beliefs. If anything, I think not going has made me a
more Christ-like person (more like Jesus anyway) because I came to
resent going to church, hated the politics of it, but once I left
that negativity behind, I felt more free to embrace the real teachings
of my faith (caring for those less fortunate, not judging others, do
unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc.)

Same experiences and same evolvement to where you are now.

To do with being a member of any one church. The "worst" examples of christians I have seen are member of a "church". One does not become a christian by joining a church, it comes from the way they conduct themselves and the way they accept a belief in God and Jesus.

Organized religions are the cause of the problems not the solution. So many people "claim" to be christians because they belong to a church, yet by their actions they are far from being one.

IMHO.

and when I was growing up, Church was all about social gatherings, and in my case no one practiced much of what the priest preached, except for using Jesus, and the fear of God as a disciplinarian. Wakes, weddings, and funerals..good times had by all. Dinner dances, and car raffles. Big parties under big tents, with the booze flowing till the wee hours. Now that's religion you can believe in.

religion begins sometimes, can't it?

So much of Irish Catholic culture will always be a part of you, regardless of where you stand on religion.

I can't think of a religious holiday that doesn't have cocktails involved.

You know, it's funny. I think of my siblings (4 of us), maybe two will have a beer, occasionally. Somehow we still manage to maintain the same atmosphere, though. And woe to you if you enter the house when we're together and leave your sense of humor (especially the one pertaining to yourself) at the door. We're vicious - to each other, to ourselves, and leave with cramped stomachs from laughing so hard.

I do have to say, though: being mostly Irish, and a small bit German, there isn't a good cooking gene in me. I'd rather have pasta, lol.

I'm STILL Irish Catholic (though I no longer drink very much). Most of our gatherings, even the religious, are used to have parties. WIth booze.

Not at all. You may not be religious, but you can still have faith.

Do you have to worship in a Church? Jesus didn't.

Are prayers only answered while in a church? No, in fact IMHO most of the prayers are not in church but wherever a person is and they decide to pray.

lldu

I can't speak to whether or not prayers are answered in church or anywhere. ;)

But I tend to have a strong mystical streak in my personality.

I was brought up a Roman Catholic. I love the faith but have no time for the church, its current leadership, political interests and infringements on the civil rights of not-Catholics.

be practiced in complete isolation from community

though - hermits, solitary religious.

It would be a very difficult path, I grant you. But I think there is room in Christian tradition for that.

This is consistent with the traditional usage of "Hermitage" as a synonym for "monastery"

Athanasius of Alexandria:
VITA S. ANTONI <Life of St. Antony> (written between 356 and 362)
... there were not yet so many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but all who wished to give heed to themselves practised the discipline in solitude near their own village. Now there was then in the next village an old man who had lived the life of a hermit from his youth up. Antony, after he had seen this man, imitated him in piety. And at first he began to abide in places out side the village ... Antony departed to the tombs, which happened to be at a distance from the village; and having bid one of his acquaintances to bring him bread at intervals of many days, he entered one of the tombs, and the other having shut the door on him, he remained within alone ... And on the day following he went forth still more eagerly bent on the service of God and having fallen in with the old man he had met previously, he asked him to dwell with him in the desert. But when the other declined on account of his great age, and because as yet there was no such custom, Antony himself set off forthwith to the mountain ... And so for nearly twenty years he continued training himself in solitude .. seldom seen by any ... One day when he had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them ...


Evagrius: St. Simeon Stylites
from Ecclesiastical History, I.13
... Simeon .. originated the contrivance of stationing himself on the top of a column ... Simeon prolonged his endurance of this mode of life through fifty-six years; nine of which he spent in the first monastery where he was instructed in divine knowledge, and forty-seven in the "Mandra" as it was called; namely, ten in a certain nook; on shorter columns, seven; and thirty upon one of forty cubits ... According to .. Theodoret, in Simeon's lifetime, he was visited by pilgrims from near and far; Persia, Ethiopia, Spain, and even Britain. To these at times he delivered sermons ... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/evagrius-simeon.html

ANCRENE WISSE, INTRODUCTION
Ancrene Wisse
Edited by Robert Hasenfratz
Originally Published in Ancrene Wisse
Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 2000
... Legal responsibility for recluses was vested in the bishop. It was a fivefold charge. The bishop, usually through a commission set up for this purpose, first ruled on the personal credentials of the candidate - on his <or her> fitness for such a life - sometimes ordering a probationary period before permanent enclosure. Second, the bishop determined if the financial support was adequate to sustain the recluse for his or her lifetime. Third, he aided in the finding of a suitable reclusorium. Fourth, he performed (or ordered performed) the rite of enclosure. And finally, he entered into an extended period of supervision that might bring in its wake the appointment of confessors, gifts of alms, grants of indulgences to others who supported the recluse, legislation to correct abuses, visitations, and a general paternal involvement ... http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/

But I also think that there is a place, and an important one, for community in Christianity. Bottom line is that it's all about our relationships - to God and to each other. That might be harder to practice alone.

Does it require a formal church and formal services? No. Though again, they are often helpful and worthwhile to people.

I also don't think that anyone else gets to say who is and is not a Christian. That's something one takes on oneself - an obligation, not club membership.

you have been prevent...



héhéhé...

You don't have to belong to a church, but then again some of us find value in the fellowship and whatnot.

Jesus do you have to believe IN to belong to the club?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Christianity can survive without churches ONLY if people go back to core values.

Yes if you refer to a church as a building structure or an organized group of worshippers.

No if you refer to the church as the universal body of believers.

My aunt is. So, yes.

There is nothing in the Bible that says you have to attend a church in order to be a Christian. There are already many church-less Christians out there.

Eventually I think that Christianity and Islam will die out and be replaced by other religions or belief systems, but not for a very long time. At least for the immediate future, Christianity is safe.

Some people call themselves Christians and aren't even religious.

Can Christianity survive without churches? In its present form, almost certainly not. In some form that it still called Christianity, perhaps.

Early Christians were busy for preparing for Jesus to come back.....I mean, RIGHT back. In their lifetimes, tomorrow, yesterday. For this reason they didn't build churches or make a lot of rules and rituals the first couple hundred years or so.

hoofed out to the desert to party down with the Essenes.

Likely there were temples in town but he walked right past 'em.