Why Organized Religion is a Problematic Way to Grow Closer to God.

[po18guy]

OP, the alternative to organized religion (a secular term) is disorganized religion.

Unless you deny yourself and conform your will as best as possible to that of the Lord, you end up fashioning a private god for yourself. Where has God told us to do this?

Christ’s peace.

 

[RobHom]

Corrections in red.

Je prefere un vin rouge avec fromage.

You’ll have forgive my poor spelling in German, I haven’t really used the language much since 1979… Other than a couple of trips back…I can still speak a bit…but spelling…

 

[RobHom]

I thought it meant Sola Scriptura. Isn’t that what Catholics believe in?

Surely you jest!

I’ve been Catholic 53 years 7 months and, well I stopped counting…

Actually…I had to sit and figure it out… Interesting when you were Baptized… I had my First Holy Communion at the Army Chapel at Bamberg, Germany in 1956!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Surely you jest!

Actually…I had to sit and figure it out… Interesting when you were Baptized… I had my First Holy Communion at the Army Chapel at Bamberg, Germany in 1956!

Military brat

Atterbury is a suburb of Frankfurt. Where is Bamberg?

My dad was in Military Intelligence. But he FORCED us to live off base and go to German school.

 

[RobHom]

Military brat

Me too, obviously…

Where is Bamberg?

It is north of Nuremburg, and west-southwest of Schweinfurt… It was a beautiful city…one of the few that were not destroyed during the war. In the Bamberg Cathedral is the grave of the only Pope buried outside of Rome…

My dad was in Military Intelligence. But he FORCED us to live off base and go to German school.

Due to the fact that dad was a Nuclear Artillery Officer with a very high clearance…we lived in Army housing and went to DOD schools… This is what he worked with… ordmusfound.org/atomcann.html

I’m jealous of you…I wish we could have gone to a German School, even though we were taught a German Class every day.

 

[po18guy]

There is no “smothering bureaucracy” in Jesus Christ’s message of love and selfless sacrifice.

I too, hated the incredibly demanding high standards and the unattainable expectations that the Church established under Jesus’ guidance.

I left the Church to go it on my own and failed miserably.

Unfortunately, my failure did not only impact me, it crushed all those who love me.

I pray you can do it on your own! Unfortunately, there has never been another human being in the history of mankind who could.

It is a weak excuse to blame the human failings of the Church’s members for your desertion of Jesus.

Someday you will see the beauty of 2000 years of tradition. It is not a “smothering bureaucracy” but a beautiful set of guidelines, that has been perfected by the Holy Spirit over the ages.

Pray for enlightenment.

Mark

Amen! A voice of experience and wisdom.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christians, as wisdomseeker is, know this as an abbreviation for Sacred Scriptures.

JSYK…I have been Catholic for less than five months, never heard the abbreviation in my life. Tried to figure it out, saintly saints? sloppy sinners? sullied solipsism? nope, didn’t get it until you said what it is. Sacred Scripture! OH! Guess I’m not Christian.

 

[multitude]

Agreed with those who remarked that the alternative to organised religion is DISorganised religion.

There is a need for organised religion. I’m just saying, from my experiences I’ve often found that even those who try to go their own ways and find some form of spirituality that seemingly suits them, often end up being organised in some form or another. Take the 16th century Reformation and the various churches for example. But fair enough, you did mention the newer forms of the Christian movement, like the supposed Restoration trying to go away from this kind of bureaucracy. What’s to stop them going in that direction?

If it’s inevitable, you are saying we should take disorganised religion, go about our own ways of spirituality. OK, then let’s take that up. Eventually people will take up with other people who seem similar to them in thoughts and beliefs, by human nature of wanting to be part of a community. And eventually people start forming their own secular cliques, they start organising everything. Let’s imagine a world of religious chaos, all these religious groups being formed.

Let’s say, for whatever reason, that one doesn’t join any of these cliques, it’s still too bureaucratic, too organised. He’s left to his own devices. Taking up that argument further, what’s to stop him from his own bureaucracy and his own rules? People change, don’t they? Usually according to their environment. Then he’s just another leaf in the wind, making up his own rules and changing them as he sees fit.

Let’s consider who God really is. If God, the creator of all, is indeed a being of unchanging standards, it would make sense that He would want these standards to be followed to the best of people’s abilities. Do you think He would really approve of those who change like this? If not, how can anyone say they are growing personally closer to God? Who are you worshipping really?

If the concern is about bureaucracy and legalism tarnishing stuff, then this begs the question as to what you’re looking at and where your efforts are concentrated.

Just my two cents.

 

[MDK]

at peace;4028693:

I thought the SS was a Nazi organization, is there a new meaning to this abbreviation?

Christians, as wisdomseeker is, know this as an abbreviation for Sacred Scriptures.

JSYK…I have been Catholic for less than five months, never heard the abbreviation in my life. Tried to figure it out, saintly saints? sloppy sinners? sullied solipsism? nope, didn’t get it until you said what it is. Sacred Scripture! OH! Guess I’m not Christian.

Please honestly read what I said and what I did not say, and what it would mean in the context in which it was presented. You have responded not to what I wrote and meant, but to your own incorrect interpretation. After you understand, please take another shot at making an honest post from the correct meaning, if you have the courage to do so.

My post said that “Christians, as wisdomseeker is”…

Note, I never said “all Christians, as wisdomseeker is” as you have inserted your own incorrect interpretation here.

For your benefit, it was a comment that no decent Christian, even if they didn’t know what the initialism “SS” meant, would have associated Nazis with a conversation describing what Scriptures positively say about Christ and his Church, as was the case in wisdomseeker’s response. It was also meant that wisdomseeker is a Christian and would not associate Nazis with Christ and His Church in a manner that one affirms teachings of the other. Your comical stabs at interpreting the initialism SS indicates that you did not associate it with Nazis in this context, and I believe this is a good thing.

Now that you can understand what it said, did not say, and what it meant, do you care to please make another post that responds to the correct interpretation?

By they way, I interpreted JSYK as it was intended in this context, rather than as Jesus Saves You Knuckleheads.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Please honestly read what I said and what I did not say, and what it would mean in the context in which it was presented. You have responded not to what I wrote and meant, but to your own incorrect interpretation. After you understand, please take another shot at making an honest post from the correct meaning, if you have the courage to do so.

My post said that “Christians, as wisdomseeker is”…

Note, I never said “all Christians, as wisdomseeker is” as you have inserted your own incorrect interpretation here.

For your benefit, it was a comment that no decent Christian, even if they didn’t know what the initialism “SS” meant, would have associated Nazis with a conversation describing what Scriptures positively say about Christ and his Church, as was the case in wisdomseeker’s response. It was also meant that wisdomseeker is a Christian and would not associate Nazis with Christ and His Church in a manner that one affirms teachings of the other. Your comical stabs at interpreting the initialism SS indicates that you did not associate it with Nazis in this context, and I believe this is a good thing.

Now that you can understand what it said, did not say, and what it meant, do you care to please make another post that responds to the correct interpretation?

By they way, I interpreted JSYK as it was intended in this context, rather than as Jesus Saves You Knuckleheads.

Actually, word associating SS to secret service would be fairly common. I didn’t go there because I knew that is not what you meant. lol. But I wondered if you were using a metaphor or something, and yes, it was very confusing to me.

I read your quote again reading ss as sacred scripture before my last post. thanks. I understand it quite well, and agree, though I would choose less stinging words if I could.

 

[MDK]

Actually, word associating SS to secret service would be fairly common. I didn’t go there because I knew that is not what you meant. lol. But I wondered if you were using a metaphor or something, and yes, it was very confusing to me.

I read your quote again reading ss as sacred scripture before my last post. thanks. I understand it quite well, and agree, though I would choose less stinging words if I could.

Thanks for the reply. If it’s confusing to you, please ask instead of assuming. Actually, shortly after I wrote my post, and long before reading yours, I wanted to remove the third sentence of the first paragraph, but my 20 minute window to edit had passed. And that truly was about having courage to post, because many do not.

The progression was that someone who denigrates organized religion in general, and here the Catholic Church had associated Nazi with the Church in a subtle way. I love the Church, the Body of Christ, and defend it, hence the post, which we’ve discussed. My post didn’t address all of humanity as though it were two groups, and someone like you didn’t fall in there at all… it was one who loved the Church and Christ, and another who thinks the Church interferes with ability to get to Christ, and therefore is bad. Not a stretch to see how they would take a subtle jab like that without blinking an eye. Many have tried to do it with Pope Pius XII, and that is completely false as well. To have a Catholic come in here and undermine this, distorting my meaning, and essentially and probably unknowingly supporting the opposition was disappointing to say the least.

I don’t know if you’re talking about the JSYK interpretation as “stinging”, but if you look at it as you wrote it, it would have been you using JSYK to me, and so I was showing that I did not misinterpret what you had written… kind of tongue in cheek.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the reply. If it’s confusing to you, please ask instead of assuming. Actually, shortly after I wrote my post, and long before reading yours, I wanted to remove the third sentence of the first paragraph, but my 20 minute window to edit had passed. And that truly was about having courage to post, because many do not.

The progression was that someone who denigrates organized religion in general, and here the Catholic Church had associated Nazi with the Church in a subtle way. I love the Church, the Body of Christ, and defend it, hence the post, which we’ve discussed. My post didn’t address all of humanity as though it were two groups, and someone like you didn’t fall in there at all… it was one who loved the Church and Christ, and another who thinks the Church interferes with ability to get to Christ, and therefore is bad. Not a stretch to see how they would take a subtle jab like that without blinking an eye. Many have tried to do it with Pope Pius XII, and that is completely false as well. To have a Catholic come in here and undermine this, distorting my meaning, and essentially and probably unknowingly supporting the opposition was disappointing to say the least.

I don’t know if you’re talking about the JSYK interpretation as “stinging”, but if you look at it as you wrote it, it would have been you using JSYK to me, and so I was showing that I did not misinterpret what you had written… kind of tongue in cheek.

That was not my intent, that is, to support an attack on the Catholic Church. As a person who left one religion in order to become Catholic, and faced a lot of guilt, on the one hand, because I knew what people of my former religion thought about my decision. And on the other hand, a lot of anger towards things that were said to me that were very hurtful. So while I left one religion, I held no ill towards the people I love who still practice it, to this day. These sort of things that get said to people who leave a religion, are said I believe, for the most part with good intent. And love for a Church. But I think they lose sight of the person. At any rate, I am just as guilty of this as the next person.

I am probably over-sensitive to such things, but I saw the same in how you talk and what you say to “at peace”.

JSYK was in jest, a jab at acronyms…I live in a world of acronyms and so find relief in poking fun at them.

I apologize if you feel injured in any way by what I said. It was not my intent.

Rebecca

 

[MDK]

That was not my intent, that is, to support an attack on the Catholic Church. As a person who left one religion in order to become Catholic, and faced a lot of guilt, on the one hand, because I knew what people of my former religion thought about my decision. And on the other hand, a lot of anger towards things that were said to me that were very hurtful. So while I left one religion, I held no ill towards the people I love who still practice it, to this day. These sort of things that get said to people who leave a religion, are said I believe, for the most part with good intent. And love for a Church. But I think they lose sight of the person. At any rate, I am just as guilty of this as the next person.

I am probably over-sensitive to such things, but I saw the same in how you talk and what you say to “at peace”.

JSYK was in jest, a jab at acronyms…I live in a world of acronyms and so find relief in poking fun at them.

I apologize if you feel injured in any way by what I said. It was not my intent.

Rebecca

That explains it, and I see where it went off the rails… For the record, I am not prejudiced against people not in the Church, and have many friends who love Christ, but are in a different house. I just wish were were all united. Some in other churches attack the Catholic Church, and I will defend the Church from those who attack her. I don’t automatically dislike one because they are not a formal member of the Church, as to me they are a potential future member of the Church. Please read my post, which was in response to a question actually posed to another:

Post on Christian Unification…

If one denigrates the Church, I’ll defend the Church. It’s really that simple, and that’s why my posts were as such with “at peace”.

I have nothing whatsoever in opposition to “at peace” (who is not at peace) other than their displayed behavior… Had the person actually come to the board respectful tone of discussion rather than what they did, the conversation would have been much different. There can be no good conversation when there is disrespect of the Body of Christ. This has to be defended first and foremost.

I don’t feel in the least injured. I was initially disappointed and wanted to straighten it out.

Welcome home… to the home God has made for all of His New Covenant family.

Michael

 

[RebeccaJ]

That explains it, and I see where it went off the rails… For the record, I am not prejudiced against people not in the Church, and have many friends who love Christ, but are in a different house. I just wish were were all united. Some in other churches attack the Catholic Church, and I will defend the Church from those who attack her. I don’t automatically dislike one because they are not a formal member of the Church, as to me they are a potential former member of the Church. Please read my post:

If one denigrates the Church, I’ll defend the Church. It’s really that simple, and that’s why my posts were as such with “at peace”.

I have nothing whatsoever in opposition to “at peace” (who is not at peace) other than their displayed behavior… Had the person actually come to the board respectful tone of discussion rather than what they did, the conversation would have been much different. There can be no good conversation when there is disrespect of the Body of Christ. This has to be defended first and foremost.

I don’t feel in the least injured. I was initially disappointed and wanted to straighten it out.

Michael

I understand.

The behaviors and psychology around leaving a religion are very complex and intricate. One thing that can happen, is that people will go in the center of the group they are leaving and proclaim their intent to leave and list of reasons. All reasons that they know could or will offend the group they are leaving.

It’s almost a test, and sometimes, people don’t even realize the test they are enacting. When people respond negative, in any way, even for the right reasons, it enforces the beliefs of the person leaving.

“at peace” will find his/her way, and really, the only thing you can do is pray that he/she will be ok and find their way.

Defending Christ’s Church also means treating people as Christ would, I guess, is the thing I wouldn’t lose site of. And like I said, I fail at this as often or more so than anyone does.

While sitting inside of God’s Church, singing His praises, don’t forget the suffering and struggles, including struggles of faith, of those on the outside. That is what I am slowly coming to understand.

 

[MDK]

I understand.

The behaviors and psychology around leaving a religion are very complex and intricate. One thing that can happen, is that people will go in the center of the group they are leaving and proclaim their intent to leave and list of reasons. All reasons that they know could or will offend the group they are leaving.

It’s almost a test, and sometimes, people don’t even realize the test they are enacting. When people respond negative, in any way, even for the right reasons, it enforces the beliefs of the person leaving.

“at peace” will find his/her way, and really, the only thing you can do is pray that he/she will be ok and find their way.

Defending Christ’s Church also means treating people as Christ would, I guess, is the thing I wouldn’t lose site of. And like I said, I fail at this as often or more so than anyone does.

While sitting inside of God’s Church, singing His praises, don’t forget the suffering and struggles, including struggles of faith, of those on the outside. That is what I am slowly coming to understand.

I agree we need to behave like Christ asks us to. I also don’t think a lot of people really understand the range of what Christ did and said and tend to think more one-dimensionally. Truly, none of us can fully understand Him. What did Christ do with the money-changers in the Temple? What did He say about the Pharisees? There is righteous indignation and defense of God’s home, and fair criticism of behaviors. What peace can we have with injustices?

When someone’s house is on fire, and they are sleeping and won’t wake up, are we allowed to use cold water? To me, their house is metaphorically “on fire.”

If we coddle someone and tell them that what they’re doing is okay, denigrating the Church is okay, then how are we really helping either them or the Church? It’s definitely never acceptable to denigrate the Church. When we defend her vigorously, people also see that we are not lukewarm. We must think about what Jesus said about those who were lukewarm.

Even if someone is suffering, it does not give them license to denigrate the Body of Christ. This can add more problems to their life. Once we get that solved, then we can move to healing the hurt.

I am not at all convinced that “at peace” will find his/her way, as they have free will, which God allows even if they use it to deny Him. I do agree that it will help to pray.

There are different ways to deal with different behaviors and people.

 

[at_peace_1]

Interesting justifications for the rude responses I got to an entirely respectful post regarding the efficacy of organized religion in helping one grow closer to God.

 

[at_peace_1]

Today was my first Sunday missing Mass for something other than work obligations. I feel “at peace”.

I would challange those who think they are ‘defending’ the Catholic Church by posting angry, insulting responses to philosophical challanges to their points of view.

 

[MDK]

Interesting justifications for the rude responses I got to an entirely respectful post regarding the efficacy of organized religion in helping one grow closer to God.

Ahhh, I thought you really wouldn’t leave, like you told us you had.

Other people on this thread, myself included didn’t find your posts “entirely respectful”. Please take a look back, to disabuse yourself of this fantasy. Please know that I will defend the Church. We cannot have a respectful conversation with one who is not respectful. I don’t buy that you are “at peace” because you don’t behave like anyone I have every known who truly has peace.

 

[at_peace_1]

Ahhh, I thought you really wouldn’t leave, like you told us you had.

Other people on this thread, myself included didn’t find your posts “entirely respectful”. Please take a look back, to disabuse yourself of this fantasy. Please know that I will defend the Church. We cannot have a respectful conversation with one who is not respectful. I don’t buy that you are “at peace” because you don’t behave like anyone I have every known who truly has peace.

You don’t behave and speak like a kind or loving person I’ve noticed, so I don’t take you as a representative of Christ.

I’ve noticed that people, when they are giving scathing retorts to those they disagree with, always compare themselves to Jesus in the Temple. I find that a very weak defense of their bad behavior.

Jesus in the Temple was opposing the commercialization of religious property by souvenir sellers, and his expressed anger was quite the exception to his usual demeanor, which was peaceful. Jesus told us to be meek and turn the other cheek. That was his main message.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree we need to behave like Christ asks us to. I also don’t think a lot of people really understand the range of what Christ did and said and tend to think more one-dimensionally. Truly, none of us can fully understand Him. What did Christ do with the money-changers in the Temple? What did He say about the Pharisees? There is righteous indignation and defense of God’s home, and fair criticism of behaviors. What peace can we have with injustices?

When someone’s house is on fire, and they are sleeping and won’t wake up, are we allowed to use cold water? To me, their house is metaphorically “on fire.”

If we coddle someone and tell them that what they’re doing is okay, denigrating the Church is okay, then how are we really helping either them or the Church? It’s definitely never acceptable to denigrate the Church. When we defend her vigorously, people also see that we are not lukewarm. We must think about what Jesus said about those who were lukewarm.

Even if someone is suffering, it does not give them license to denigrate the Body of Christ. This can add more problems to their life. Once we get that solved, then we can move to healing the hurt.

I am not at all convinced that “at peace” will find his/her way, as they have free will, which God allows even if they use it to deny Him. I do agree that it will help to pray.

There are different ways to deal with different behaviors and people.

The money changers is brought up often, from people of many different Christan faiths. The way I see it, that was God’s house, and Jesus was cleaning up His own place.

This is a fellow Catholic, who has stumbled, and fallen, maybe is a bit bruised up. Better to pick them up than throw rocks at them.

This isn’t some rabid anti-Catholic hell bent on persecuting and killing Christians.

That’s all I’m saying.