The trouble is that I actually agree with what you say there, to a great degree. That is a HUGE reason I am a LAPSED Episcopalian. However, I don't think that Jesus was saying that it is wrong to worship in public, per se, only that your faith is a very private and personal matter; somebody else (such as a priest) is not required to translate the word of God. I think that formal churches, while not intrinsically bad, are a way for Satan to obscure and twist the message of the Bible.
I don't judge other people, for I cannot know what is in another man's heart. I can only avoid what I believe is corrupt, the best I know how. I believe all organized religion (e.g. any Christian sect) is inherently corruptible, since it is made by man, so I avoid it. God did, after all, say that even the most glorious creations of man are as rags to him (or something similar).
However, having said all this, I believe that the Catholic church is the worst abuser, with the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), a close second. How anyone can know the bible and call these groups Christian gives me a headache.

Actually, it was merely adopted by Henry VIII used the Anglican Church as he knew the Archbishop of Canterbury would allow divorce, he didn't create it, and even distanced himself from it afterwards being Catholic himself and just trying to find a way to not execute his wife in order to remarry.
In fact the Anglican Church was adopted as the Church of England by Edward the VI during his brief reign and it wasn't until Queen Elizabeth that it was adopted permanently. It was founded on the principal that a lot of the Roman Catholic teachings were non-scriptural, and it's adoption actually led to Elizabeth's excommunication by the Catholic Church.

By extension, the damage Catholicism has done to the Bible has been done to all of Christianity. How can you follow the teachings of Christ if all you have is heavily edited and 'reinterpreted' texts that are based on texts that were first written over a century after Christ's death? How can you know who Jesus really was or what he wanted for the world? He frequently contradicted himself and plainly stated he wasn't an aspect of God (through getting the ten commandments he supposedly gave to Moses wrong).
The bible was written in a language so simple it didn't have words for many things we consider fundamental to any modern language. Not to mention the fact that they're fundamental to the teachings of the Bible itself and its explanations of things. That leaves a lot of room for reinterpretation. And that's even before you get to the fact that these texts have been left for centuries in the hands of the ludicrously corrupt, power crazed Catholic Church.
Then of course there are the overwhelming similarity with Mithras and the fact that Greek and pagan mythology has also been plundered to flesh out the Christian faith. This might have been pretty easy to fool people with millennia ago when they were largely ignorant of anything outside their own village, but it's really transparent today.
As close to the craziness of Scientology as the Mormon faith is, comparatively, it hasn't done any harm at all. Even if it had. It would be like keying a car after it had just been cubed in the scrapyard crusher.
I've got nothing against people wanting to believe there's a god. But when they cling to something that undoes itself completely (even before science gets its claws in) there's something wrong there. How could the 'one true faith' have been so completely corrupted?

Cool deal! Learned my something new for the day :).
I don't want to get into a whole discussion on the relative merits of the Bible, that's what Bible study is for. It is not a subject that can be argued in a forum thread and do it justice. The long and short of it is that knowing the Bible takes work, but it can be done. Reading it is the first step, and I don't think most folks that call themselves Christians have even read 10%.
My main point is that I don't think Catholicism can be called Christianity anymore, it has been too perverted. I am not saying that Catholics, or any other sect for that matter, are bad people, I am merely saying that I don't think they should be called Christian. Catholics are something else entirely, for better or for worse.
Scientology is nothing better than a cult, in my eyes, and I'll leave it at that.

I think Navagon's point is that reading the Bible is pointless for any purpose other than historical interest. It doesn't really matter what is in it, since its origins are so suspect. The words you will find in a modern bible (or even a very old one) are the result of centuries of censorship, mistranslations, subjective interpretations and plain fictions, made by the ruling elite at the time, whose main purpose was to maintain the balance of power in their favor. In short, reading the Bible may teach you something about the history of Christianity from a literary standpoint, but it won't teach you much about Christianity in a religious sense.

I disagree. Navagon's points don't really hold water with me. I'll address his two major points:
1) Christianity borrows/steals from other religions.
Well, there are two reasons this could be the case. Firstly, God has been around since... forever. He hasn't just ignored humanity during this time. It isn't a stretch to assume some other belief systems would have some tenets in common with the teachings in the Bible since the same Being is behind everything. Secondly, even if God had nothing to do with it, even a broken clock can give the correct time twice a day.
2) The Bible is wrong because of mistranslations or out and out chicanery.
There is such thing as the Dead Sea scrolls. Aramaic is a language people know how to translate. Thus, it is trivial to compare and contrast the two. In any event, this is why one must study the Bible, which I noted before. Some passages might be ambiguous when read out of context, however OTHER passages will shed light on the true meaning. Humans are fallible, God's Word is not .
Anyone else find it amusing that an Existentialist is the one defending the Bible the hardest? Seriously, it is very amusing to me :P. I never said I was a practicing Christian (even said I was lapsed), but some folks may have made that assumption. Regardless, I was brought up Episcopalian, and many of my friends are Christian, so I do see where they are coming from.
Anyway, could we stop talking about the Bible now? Instead, how about the question of whether or not Catholics and/or Mormons can be called Christians. That question holds much more interest to me. Because, what exactly defines Christianity? I posit that if a group of people don't follow the 10 Commandments (well, actually 13, they are just counted several different ways, depending on sect) and/or don't believe that Christ is the Son of God, they shouldn't try to pass themselves off as "Christian". I believe Catholics and Mormons both fail this test (Catholics the first part, Mormons the second).
EDIT:
Just in case anyone wonders. The reason I am not a Christian any longer is that I don't believe that God takes an active role in human affairs (basic Existentialism 101). This means that I don't believe that Christ could possibly be the Son of God. This pretty much excludes me from being a Christian. This also pretty much tosses the entirety of the Old Testament out the window as well, so Judaism is right out as well.
I do believe there is a God, and I do believe that there will be some sort of reckoning eventually, however that is about as far as I'll go with it. I also firmly believe that if all people lives their lives by the tenets of the Bible, then the world would be a MUCH better place. I don't mean the type of Christian that wants to impose their morality on others, I mean those that merely try their hardest to live by the morality espoused in the Bible.

Catholics: misguided but still Christian.
Mormons: a perversion of Christianity(at least in the sense of what other Christians believe)
Just a note that I myself belong to the Anglican Church of Canada.

Nicene Creed?

Poe's Law
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

THAT'S the name! I was looking for that for ages (at least 5 minutes) last night. My google-fu must have been weak
Is that why the story of jesus is a transparent copy of the story of horus?

It was also copied from the Roman God Mithras

Mithras does not pre-date The Council of Nicaea and thats where modern day Christianity began.

We can thank the Catholic Church for Chrristianizing every Pagan Holiday under the Sun. They even managed to mess up the ressurection with Easter.

Fair enough, but Jewish-Christianity was going on beforehand, with what would be very similar although less focus on the birth and more on his acts, as quite frankly, the birth of Christ is really very unimportant.

Pretty much, but them using the holidays for something else jut shows that Catholicism is misguided, and seeing how the dates of the holidays contradict scripture...