As far as our book of answers, I look there too. I'd have to say that what we have is a book of collected works written by early Christian church leaders. This is the same as including the writings of Augustine, Torquemada, Joseph Smith, or Max Lucado in a second volume of the Bible. Theology does not trump science for a reason (plus saying that a particular people have access to special or secret knowledge of the cosmos is kind of arrogant … if it is a universal truth why is it secret … sounds like a pyramid scheme website). Not a single word was written in ink without a human hand and mind. In fact some of it was written in the metaphorical blood of other Christians. This is not to say that the teachings of the Bible will not pass for universal truths. Also, I do not deny that we can have spiritual experience and revelation, but it should not come at the cost of reality.

It is interesting to learn the historical roots of Christianity, the Judaism it sprang from, and how they branched out to todays sects. Even in the birth of Christianity there was division over the mix of god/human Jesus was. Some believed he was fully human adopted by god, some that he was part god and part man, and still others that he was both fully god and fully men. Obviously the last doctrine won out, as that is the official/mainstream/popular teaching today. Its believers had more followers, political power, etc. The followers of “heresies” were seen as less than human and eradicated for their beliefs by the followers of “orthodoxy.” Christianity was born of revolutionary Jewish beliefs and unreasonable bloodshed like Islam which would follow it.

Sam Harris is talking about this taboo issue:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Hopefully a new age is dawning on man, one that is free of abusive authoritarianism.

“Land of Confusion” - by Genesis (original) and Disturbed (new)

In the Bible it does say, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. ” (Hebrews 10:25)

To me it seems God very much wants his own to assemble together.

We have a book of answers, my friend.

Just as Jesus mentioned a church that hell could not prevail against, there are numerous other passages that describes its function.

Mostly we tend to think of church as a building, but we all know it refers to its people.

Jesus Christ has made its people free from sin, but He calls them together as people (plural) to become a community encircled by God and indwelt by His Spirit, so that they might manifest His glory before the old humanity. They do not have to suffer the coldness of individualism. Individuals are nurtured within the ekklesia (1 Pet. 5:2) as being together "a people claimed by God for his own " (1 Peter 2:9 NEB). They matured through the integrated study of God's word, not through graded curricula. Leaders were God's shepherds of God's flock, not officials in an organization (1 Pet. 5:1-2).

I do think perhaps many a church today goes about it wrongly, they should look to the New Testament more.

The true nature of the first century New Testament Church, its love, its unity, its fellowship (koinonia), its ministry, can become a reality in the twentieth century Church. If the present forms within the Church structure deprive the Church of its essential character, then the forms must go so that the church remains. But the diligent Church will sort out the difference between the principle and the form and will never confuse the one with the other.

My son is studying to be a pastor and he is very concerned with having a true New Testament Church and finds this very challenging.

This is what our pastor always says and I believe it to be true.

As far as the church is concerned, it seems to be an important institution on Jesus' own words:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

“gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” seems mighty strong and serious language to me.

But all along I've had my reservations. It's not necessarily the beliefs or the faith. It's about the execution (no pun intended) of those beliefs. It's about the rigidity inherent to organized religion. O.R. tends to make its followers rather… close-minded. Unwilling to consider alternatives.

Like I said, I want to write this up a little more when I get a chance. I'm hoping maybe this weekend. Get some references, quotes and such.