I have heard from several religious figures, including a pastor at a Christian church that just going to church alone does not make you a Christian if you do not maintain a Christian mindset or do certain things outside of church. I have even heard it said by a select few in YouTube
videos that giving money was among the requirements, which would essentially mean that people who are not in a position to give money are not and cannot be Christians. Of course this notion is beyond ridiculous, but even aside from it I have to wonder why it is that any "Christian" even bothers going to church, or why the pastor wants them to go to church if he himself is of the mindset that simply going to church does not make you a Christian.

If going to church is supposed to be one of the requirements among others, then a person can't really be criticized for going to church even if they don't do other things that might be considered necessary to be a Christian because at least they are making an effort. But aside from that, a person may as well practice Christianity outside of a church setting, or do more or less what is done in church but outside of a church if they are doing other things. I do imagine that it must be difficult, in any case, to constantly question if one is doing enough of the right things and in the right ways to be considered a Christian, especially if a pastor is creating doubt on a regular basis. — BBQueue

Most churches squander the tithes and offerings and at the same time reject true fiscal conservatism that would actually help the poor. There are ways to help the poor through law changes with out government handouts. Mainly through modernized building codes that take into account building materials and commercial off the shelf security systems made cheap by global factories. Many churches just follow "work harder, spend less and give more to the church".

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

Exactly, which is why you don't or technically should not have to go to church to be considered a Christian or to be saved. So the pastor's logic actually goes against what is in the Bible.

If going to church doesn't make you a Christian, then why even go to church?

The cute chicks of course!

The Bible is clear "Once Saved, Always Saved". John 15, John 3, Psalm 23, book of James, book of Romans among others. If Jesus Christ thought i was going to do something to lose my salvation in 10 years he would kill me today. When the horse gets a broken leg, the farmer takes it around back behind the barn and shoots it.

Jesus Christ can predict 100% of everything.

This is a religious post about christianity by a christian so i'm authorized to post scripture.

Exactly, which is why you don't or technically should not have to go to church to be considered a Christian or to be saved. So the pastor's logic actually goes against what is in the Bible. — BBQueue

i agree.

You can't go to church if you're not Christian.
You can't be a Christian if you don't go to church.

To go to church you have to be Christian.
To be Christian you have to go to church.

Before you go to church you have to be Christian.
Before you're Christian you have to go to church.

It's impossible to either go to church or be a Christian. :joke:

It's not a club with membership rules, subs or obligations.

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.

You don't have to, clapping your hands doesn't make you happy, and being happy doesn't make you clap your hands. Lot's of people just want to show their appreciation.

Perhaps, as unlikely as it may be, a person goes to church merely because that person enjoys platitudes, the recitation of the bland version of scripture as is now used, and listening to, if not singing, pedestrian songs. Perhaps a person wants to appear to be a Christian. Perhaps it's a form of penance to some. Perhaps someone has been dared to attend church.

Perhaps going to church is part of the criteria for having a “Christian mindset?” In other words, if you have a Christian mindset, then you will want to go to church; therefore you do.

Well, it is more complicated.
The whole thing about two or three gathering as a congregation doesn't square with a lot of other stuff that has been said.
But there it is.

When did people even start building churches? I think historically it is quite a new thing.

I would first question the assumption that this notion of "going to church" is actually authorised and grounded in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings, the founder of Christianity!

I have heard from several religious figures, including a pastor at a Christian church that just going to church alone does not make you a Christian if you do not maintain a Christian mindset or do certain things outside of church. I have even heard it said by a select few in YouTube
videos that giving money was among the requirements, which would essentially mean that people who are not in a position to give money are not and cannot be Christians. Of course this notion is beyond ridiculous, but even aside from it I have to wonder why it is that any "Christian" even bothers going to church, or why the pastor wants them to go to church if he himself is of the mindset that simply going to church does not make you a Christian.

If going to church is supposed to be one of the requirements among others, then a person can't really be criticized for going to church even if they don't do other things that might be considered necessary to be a Christian because at least they are making an effort. But aside from that, a person may as well practice Christianity outside of a church setting, or do more or less what is done in church but outside of a church if they are doing other things. I do imagine that it must be difficult, in any case, to constantly question if one is doing enough of the right things and in the right ways to be considered a Christian, especially if a pastor is creating doubt on a regular basis. — BBQueue

The current coronavirus pandemic and its effects may shed light on this issue. Just like the mere fact of going to a school building doesn't make one a student, just going to church also doesn't make one a christian. Schools are just there to make it convenient for students to learn and learning and the value in an education that spurs it on is what's important. Similarly, churches too are simply convenient spots to have a dialog on christian values and what's important are the values and the actions they recommend, not merely the act of going to churches on certain days.

Christians are stuck in the "I sin seven times a day and just always do penance" mentality. Maybe they literally sin all the time. Idn. They think everyone else does. My counter Pascal wager is "if you can't prove the supernatural is real, why choose faith and make life harder on yourself."

It's kinda like asking, if I can learn without going to class, why bother taking lessons?

From learning math to a new language to an instrument, the vast majority of people not only fare better in a class or at the very least with a teacher, it's also the only way the learn at all. Several reasons:

-Personal drive is pretty low among most people.

-Teachers can give you guidance and answers and be otherwise helpful in ways you'd have to figure out for yourself otherwise... And that kind of snag would make lots of people just give up on independent learning.

-Peer pressure is useful. It's bad when your friends are doing drugs, but it's great to have a community to motivate you to do better.

Etc, etc.

And, yeah yeah, there are people who hated school and didn't learn anything (blah blah blah) or who do better learning on their own (stubborn mules) and class/church doesn't always work out so ideally (yada yada). But these are the reasons why class/church can help people be better learners/Christians.

For the argument P > Q, the converse need not necessarily be true.

If you are a living human being (P) then you have a human head (Q) [True]
If you have a human head (Q) then you are a living human being (P) [False]
- lots of dead humans beings have human heads

This holds true for the argument at hand.

If you are a Christian (P) then you attend church (Q). That may be true while the converse is false.

A simple truth table bears out the possiblities P > Q

P Q P > Q
T T T If you are a Christian, you attend church (true)
T F F If you are a Christian, you do not attend church (false)
F T T If you are a not a Christian, you attend church (true)
F F T If you are not a Christian, you do not attend church (true)

Disclaimer: there is, of course, a not insignificant amount of vagueness in the argument. Does desiring to go to church but being unable to go count for going? Etc.

The logic, however, indicates both Christians AND non-Christians attend church (both return true on a truth table). It is reasonable, then, to say going to church does not make one a Christian.

if you can't prove the supernatural is real, why choose faith and make life harder on yourself. — Gregory

In what way does it make life harder?

The alternative to believing in something supernatural is materialism...which, if we're honest, is nihilism. How is nihilism easier?

"An essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world."
(Neitze - The Gay Science)

Or, better yet, in a purely materialistic universe, who's "choosing" faith? That isn't really an option, is it?

"It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
(Hawking - The Grand Design)

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

(Richard Dawkins - River Out of Eden)

I would first question the assumption that this notion of "going to church" is actually authorised and grounded in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings, the founder of Christianity! — Anonymous112

Jesus didn't advocate Christianity, nor was he a Christian. Jesus didn't found Christianty, his followers did. And their followers founded the church.

if you can't prove the supernatural is real, why choose faith and make life harder on yourself.
— Gregory

In what way does it make life harder? — Aussie

Who says life is supposed to be easy?

Who says life is supposed to be easy? — Merkwurdichliebe

No one...I think. Not even Jesus, since we're discussing Christianity.

John 16:33
"...In this world ye shall have tribulation..."

But that doesn't answer my question. In what way does "choosing faith" (assuming that's even possible) make life harder? You brought up the idea of easier vs. harder. Not me.

Jesus didn't advocate Christianity...Jesus didn't found Christianty, his followers did. And their followers founded the church. — Merkwurdichliebe

I suppose that depends on what you mean. If church is a building then no, Jesus didn't found any of those. If church is a group of individuals assembling together for a common purpose (doctrinal and vocational - which is truer to the word "church" - ekklesia: assembly or group of called out pepole), then the argument seems in favor of him having founded it.

Matt 16:18
"...upon this rock I will build my church..."

Matt 18:17
"if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen..."

And he certainly "advocated" the spreading of his teaching...which is the basis of Christianity. If I grant you that his followers founded anything, if they did so in response to a command to do so, how does that remove Jesus from the equation?

Luke Ch. 10
[1] "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[2] Therefore said he unto them...
[9] ...heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[16] He that heareth you heareth me..."

Matt 28
[19] "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"

...nor was he a Christian. — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course he wasn't. Christian means a follower of Christ. He would have to be a follower of himself. How would that work?

I would first question the assumption that this notion of "going to church" is actually authorised and grounded in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings, the founder of Christianity! — Anonymous112

Certainly it is authorized (?) in the Bible.

Heb 10
[24] And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
[25] Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...

...and Paul speaks repeatedly of coming together as a church in 1 Cor. Additionally, Acts is rife with examples of the early disciples meeting regularly for teaching and "breaking of bread" (Communion).

And Jesus' rules for excommunication [further assented to by Paul] seem to strongly imply an assembling together. Else, from what is one being excommunicated? Can someone be denied entry to a group with whom they do not associate/assemble?

Matt 18:17
If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen... [Jesus]

:up:

No one...I think. Not even Jesus, since we're discussing Christianity.

John 16:33
"...In this world ye shall have tribulation..."

But that doesn't answer my question. In what way does "choosing faith" (assuming that's even possible) make life harder? You brought up the idea of easier vs. harder. Not me. — Aussie

Merely to live in the world, one will suffer tribulation, and tribulation means some form of hardship. Worldly tribulation does not cease once a person receives faith, it continues unabated. The only difference, is that the one who lives in faith will find peace amidst the tribulation, whereas the faithless will innanely search the world (the very source of tribulation) for a solution to their tribulations.

I suppose that depends on what you mean. If church is a building then no, Jesus didn't found any of those. If church is a group of individuals assembling together for a common purpose (doctrinal and vocational - which is truer to the word "church" - ekklesia: assembly or group of called out pepole), then the argument seems in favor of him having founded it. — Aussie

how does that remove Jesus from the equation? — Aussie

Good point. It doesn't.

Vocational - a person called to a vocation... I understand this as what is truly Christian, since Christianity is an existence communication (addressed to the individual existing subject, not the congregation), and to be a Christian is pure act. In this way, each Christian is a church in his own right.

Doctrinal, not so much, for Jesus did not appear in the world merely to add another doctrine to history (which people could debate with and subscribe to). I would associate Christian doctrine with the establishment church - qua Chistendom -, and not with Jesus or Christianity.

Of course he wasn't. Christian means a follower of Christ. He would have to be a follower of himself. How would that work? — Aussie

:lol:

Certainly it is authorized (?) in the Bible.

Heb 10
[24] And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
[25] Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...

...and Paul speaks repeatedly of coming together as a church in 1 Cor. Additionally, Acts is rife with examples of the early disciples meeting regularly for teaching and "breaking of bread" (Communion).

And Jesus' rules for excommunication [further assented to by Paul] seem to strongly imply an assembling together. Else, from what is one being excommunicated? Can someone be denied entry to a group with whom they do not associate/assemble?

Matt 18:17
If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen... [Jesus] — Aussie

You need to apply better critical thinking than that. Notice how Jesus in the gospels used the word church, despite there being no Christian buildings around, and when no Christians met weekly? Perhaps the definition of church has been distorted over time. For instance, take note of how the early Christians behaved. Read Acts 2 and Acts 4, and ask yourself why the early Christians forsook all their possessions and gave the money from the proceedings unto the apostles. After they did this they lived together 24/7, not considering anything that they had as theirs, but as common property.

Acts 2 "[44] And all that believed were together, and had all things common; [45] And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Acts 4 "[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

Notice how the early Christians lived together after they had forsook all, and they considered the things they had in their dwellings common property? There was no church they went to because they were the church. So then from whom and when did this idea of meeting in a religious building come from? Perhaps it's time to do some research. And if you are wondering why the early Christians sold all their possessions, maybe you don't know what Jesus taught. Take a read of Matthew 6, Luke 12, Luke 14 as a start. Please share your thoughts after that.

Oh, and those scriptures that apparently prove Christians are meant to meet in building a few times a week, they don't actually prove that. Not forsaking the assembly simply means not ceasing to live together, as practised by Jesus with his disciples, and as practised by the early Christians with the apostles. It was only later in Christianity that people stopped living together, and invented a new system to replace it.

Notice how Jesus in the gospels used the word church, despite there being no Christian buildings around... — Anonymous112

I did not suggest he was referring to a building. Exactly the opposite in fact, if you go back and re-read my post. In the absence of some compelling reason to think he was using the word in a unique or abnormal way, though, it is critically sound to assume he meant the normal meaning of the word: an assembly or called out group of people.

For instance, take note of how the early Christians behaved. Read Acts 2 and Acts 4... — Anonymous112

I'm familiar with the passages. What about that speaks to the issue at hand: church attendance? Except that it does record they met daily at the Temple which would be reasonable since at that point Christianity was little more than a "Jewish sect". Of course, that would seem a counter point your assertion that they didn't go somewhere to meet together. Oh well.

There was no church they went to because they were the church. So then from whom and when did this idea of meeting in a religious building come from? — Anonymous112

I never said there was such a thing as a church building at that time nor that that is what is meant by "the church". I said, quite clearly, the word refers to the people. And it is clear that the people assembled together regularly. Most likely in private homes originally until much later when specific buildings began to be built for that purpose. "Attending church", then, is to say regularly assembling together as a body. Where that is to be done is never dictated.

...maybe you don't know what Jesus taught. Take a read of Matthew 6, Luke 12, Luke 14 as a start. Please share your thoughts after that. — Anonymous112

Well, my first thought is you're awfully smug. But after that, I think...

Matthew 6 - discusses hypocrisy (doing "good works" for show) and working to keep your focus on God and the eternal as opposed to worldly goods and the temporal.

Luke 6 - similar to the passage in Matthew with the added teaching of living so as to be prepared for the end, whatever that may be (the Lord's return, your death, etc)

Luke 14 - again, primarily a passage on hypocrisy with the added teaching that one ought consider their dedication to what is being asked of them should they follow Jesus.

What is your point from these passages, as it relates to church attendance? Or are they meant as a veiled insult...an accusation that I am somehow a hypocrite?

Not forsaking the assembly simply means not ceasing to live together, as practised by Jesus with his disciples, and as practised by the early Christians with the apostles. It was only later in Christianity that people stopped living together, and invented a new system to replace it. — Anonymous112

Other than your opinion, can you offer any proof? Acts speaks of the disciples "coming together" for teaching and breaking of bread. How were they not already together if they lived as one big group. I Cor also says, "when you come together...". Again, were they not already together? And lets not forget what Peter said to Ananias ans Saphira before they were struck dead for their lie of having held back some of the money they sold their land for.

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?

Peter affirmed their right to retain what was theirs because it was never a universal commandment to sell everything you own and give it to the church. Acts is a historical record. It records both some explicit teaching and some of what people simply did apart from a command to do so. It's called descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. If all descriptive history is meant to be prescriptive teaching you've got a real problem on your hands.

I would add many others never sold all they owned and were never condemned as somehow failing to achieve the call of Christianity. Some were even wealthy enough to have servants. But AGAIN, what does any of that have to do with the question at hand...church attendance?