The Truth About Christianity - Give your views

by Sirona 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

Abaddon

FirstInLine
You must understand that Christianity (among other religions) is an irrational arbitrary religion to begin with. At its core is the idea that human beings in their current state are not good enough for God to accept. If you want to be accepted by God all you have to do is do exactly as some guys who claimed to hear god's voice say and believe the things they tell you. Then because of what God has done through the second person of his being you can be made acceptable and not be punished for the things you deserve to be punished for.

Oh, I do understand that. I thought that was obvious.
In addition keep in mind that if there is a God(s), and I believe there is: he/they either cannot do anything to help us and therefore probably did not create us
I wouldn't call that god. That would be an alien, even if it is one that conforms to Clarke's maxim about sufficiently advanced technologies.
or did create us, can help us when we are in need but doesnt.
Which is my idea of a monster, or at least (to be precise) my expectation of the character of god as someone raised in a Christian culture is that as I would find such inaction on part of an omnipotent entity immoral, and I as am made in god's image, then god would also find it immoral. Of course, those are enculturated expectations and god might actually have more in common with Quetzalcoati.
I think the latter is true logically.
And why do you say this? Adding 'logically' to a statement doesn't add to its validity unless you can back it up in the manner you say you can.
This tells me God is a very complicated mysterious fellow no matter whose theology newsletter you subscribe to.
The word I would use is monster; if a father could save his children from death but didn't as part of a game/plan/because they're corporeal existance is irrelevent/insert other sophistry, then many people would call him a monster. As it is below so it is above.
Continuing with that train of thought, if God did have a religion, a strange esoteric religion with arbitrary ordinances and rites would not be too far out of the question.
And why would god have a religion? Are you postulating an endless array of gods worshipping the one above them in the chain and being worshipped by the one directly below them? You have been describing your viewpoint as logical, I'd love to see your reasoning on this.
The illogic of Christianity may be one of the better selling points of it since a logical mind would see the illogic in God's actions (or lack there of) very quickly.
I dont think that God is very understandable to begin with. His motives cannot be logically considered.
Er... yes, but if it were all made up then the lack of logic and the incomprehensibility would also be explicable on account of it being (drum roll) made up. How do you exclude this equivalently valid and simpler explanation for what I term ineffability (lack of understandability/logic)?
Would a nice little cookie cutter religion with all the anwers and no mystery that fits neatly in a box seem more divine or man-made and Disneyesque?
You are pre-supposing that a religion which 'made sense' would not be divine. Explain your reasoning. Gravity and other demonstrably real phenomena 'make sense' in their everyday expression in the world. If god is a real phenomena why does it differ from other real phenomena by not making sense in the real world?
Is not our condition mysterious to begin with?
Anyone can say it is, but on the other hand one can equally say our condition is utterly banal. Monkey on ball of dirt round big fire, eet. al.. You ask a question which assumes I'll agree. I don't. Show me the logic of your assertion that our condition is mysterious.
Is not religion itself a rather strange and mysterious way for the Ultimate Authority to govern?
Yes, this was pointed out a long time ago by people who got to thinking if god's all powerful why does he need, want, or be remotely interested in the worship of humans. It's a good reason to suspect the entire religion thing is made up.
You then said in the second post; the first one was nice, the second arsey; bi-polar today?;
Are you insane? When did I ever say anything that was absolute? You are being REACTIONARY
You said;
the proof is all around
Calling someone insane for asking them to clarify if they mean absolute proof or just what they think is proof isn't insane. If anyone's being reactionary, it's you with your language ('insane' and what was the other one... oh, yeah - a jerk).
When your wood shavings take on the shape of bunny-rabbits going hippity-hop, reproducing and building skyskrapers, thermonuclear warheads, colliders... well you may have missed something in what exactly consitutes a bona fide "shaving."
You miss the metaphor; you were saying god could be unaware of us; I was agreeing with you that this could be so, and giving the example of us as wood shavings on a carpenter's floor who THINK they are part of god's plan but whom god is unaware of. The achievement of the shavings is not relevent to the metaphor.
You sound real stuck-up.
Yeah, one of the reasons we'd either fight (verbally) like cat and dog in real-life or really get on well in real-life; you're opinionated too... didn't you know?
You are also hijacking.
By definition, Mr-who-uses-the-word-logic-a-lot, asking you to start another thread on a claim you have made is not hijacking, it's a sign I want you to validate your claims elsewhere without disrupting the discussion in hand. Don't make false accusations.
You almost sound offended by the mere fact that I believe there is a God with a strong conviction of logic.
Not offended, I just want to see what your belief structure is. Saying "I believe because I had a religious experience x-y-z" is one thing. It's subjective. Saying "I believe there is a God with a strong conviction of logic." is implying that there is something objectively determinable with regard to your claim.
I am not going to even try to open your mind for you THAT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE FEAT. I would love for you to have an open mind.
Hahaha. Yeah... make out it's MY fault, of course... how weak...
In Britain there's an expression; all talk and no trousers.
If you are unwilling to back up your claims about the logic of god's existence, then don't be surprised if your claims are viewed in the light of your inability to defend them.
Sirona:
My key question is this;
If not conforming your life to these viewpoints (or beliefs) results in a negative outcome (i.e. if someone not living his life as a Christian results in a disadvantage, perhaps even destruction), then how is it fair if these viewpoints are unprovable and regional in their expression?
There's nothing in that asking for 100% proof - asking someone to clarify IF they were claiming that themselves (as I did with FirstInLine) is different, and he's the one getting stroppy, I'm really interested in Christians replies to the above.
scotsman

Sirona asked
I'd like to invite Christians on this board to post what they believe.
I'm not a Christian and can read. Let them post without badgering them.
Love_Truth

All,
I?m going to respond to each of you in one post, (this way I won?t run out of them as quickly). (NOTE: This post is in reply to all posts up to Abaddon's at 26-Feb-04 05:59). Rather than point out where I agree with you, I will only point out my disagreements, and why I disagree, or respond to your question you raised. I?m not here to forever debate who?s explanations, conclusions and opinions have more or less merit, as t here is inadequate evidence for any belief system, to irrefutably prove a factual conclusion, other than the factual conclusion that there is inadequate evidence for any belief system, to irrefutably prove a factual conclusion, ad nauseum. No one can claim absolute closure. We all choose to believe (have faith in) our conclusions, or the conclusions of others. Anyone can poke holes in any belief system.
That?s why they?re called ?belief systems.? One must choose what to base their beliefs on, as all of us have done. The fact that we differ is unsurprising, and in no way proves or disproves any of the evidence or conclusions drawn by either side of the argument. One more important point- ?Christianity? is a label. It covers a lot of ground, and a wide range of interpretation. While I recognize that, I believe Christianity is based on following Jesus Christ, and his teachings (and the teachings of the Apostles). Putting faith in him as the Son of God, where his teachings (and the teachings of the Apostles) do not come to a single interpretation, then it must not be necessary for our salvation. Where they are clear as a bell, then these teachings are necessary for our salvation. Here goes:
FirstInLine,
Such main Doctrines include :Deity of Christ, implicit Trinity,
I strongly disagree. The bulk of the Scriptural evidence points to a created Christ. Christ?s ?deity? and the ?implicit trinity? were decided on in 325 AD at the convening of the Council of Nicea, who lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express what they desired to teach in Catholicism, which had already been heavily influenced by secular Rome. Rather than debate you on this (the nature of Christ), I will simply say that in the end, the Scriptures teach us that Christ?s sacrifice is the basis for our salvation, and Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Since that is the case, I don?t see the use of debating the nature of Christ ad nauseum, In the emd God will judge us as individuals, and it can be argued that either belief (true Monotheism or Trinitarian) is acceptable, though I find much more evidence for the former.
Physical Resurrection of the Christ,
Disagree. The bulk of Scriptural evidence points out that corruptible flesh and blood does not exist in the Spirit realm. However, this is another teaching that, no matter what your conclusion, is not critical for salvation. Believe what you will.
Christ dying for the sins of the whole world on a Cross,
Whether Christ died on a Cross or Stake is not important for our salvation. I don?t think there?s enough evidence one way or another to prove either. I don?t even have an opinion on it, other than that it?s not necessary for salvation.
and eternal conscious damnation for Satan and his Demons.
Disagree on the ?conscious? part. Again, it matters not whether the damnation is conscious or not. I hold that it is not, but this is not necessary for salvation.
At the same time I find stories such as the Flood to be irrational when taken literally.
Disagree. I take it literally. Does it matter for our salvation? No.
I do not believe the entire globe was covered by water.
Whether or not the Earth was completely covered is unknown. It is not necessary for our salvation.
The fossil record does not support such a claim and there are too many reasons to list that it is irrational to believe.
Strongly disagree. Either conclusion has adequate evidence,therefore, neither conclusion is irrational, and it?s not necessary for our salvation.
I do not believe hell is a literal place,
I agree, but it?s not necessary for our salvation.
however it was created for the Devil and his angels. The bible is unclear IMO on human damnation.
Disagree. IMO, It is for Satan, his demons, and humans too. I believe hell is simply a state of non- existence. Knowing what the nature of hell is, is not necessary for our salvation.
The JWs, Mormons and other such cults are drastically heretical from Christianity in all there deviations.
I agree, but I would add that, IMO, all ?Christian? (and non-Christian) religions, sects, divisions, etc, are all Apostate, part of Babylon the Great, as they teach doctrines of men side by side with Scripture, and make them essentially equal.
I feel the need to remind you that it is faith in Christ that saves not faith that the selected pages of catholic theologians are inspired by God.
Yes, it is faith in Christ that saves. As for the ? selected pages of catholic theologians? comment, that is your opinion, not a fact. The canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible, as well as evidence of their divine inspiration abounds. I frankly find this particular comment of yours ignorant and self-aggrandizing, no more, no less.
I defer to my previous post for more details concerning the true Doctrines of Christianity.
Another pompous, arrogant comment of yours, FirstInLine. Do you know the ? the true Doctrines of Christianity??
Answer: absolutely not. Nor can you prove that you do, no more than anyone else can irrefutably prove their conclusions on what ? the true Doctrines of Christianity ? are.
Funky Derek,
Christianity is a religion. It's not "the true faith" or "a personal relationship with Jesus" or whatever else you may call it. It's a religion with gods and rules and holy books and myriad sects and denominations
I agree, because you are using the label ?Christianity?, which covers a lot of ground, and a wide range of interpretation. While I recognize that, I believe true Christianity is based on following Jesus Christ, and his teachings. IMO, when Christ?s teachings (and his Apostle?s teachings, learned from him) are necessary for our salvation, there is one clear interpretation. When those teachings are not are necessary for our salvation, there are many possible interpretations. For the most part, the divisions, sects, etc, are a result of the latter, not the former.
Sirona,
Do you believe that God will destroy non-Christians in a battle of armageddon? If not, what is armageddon according to the bible?
As mentioned above, there are two uses (at least) for the word ?Christian?. I differentiate between the label, and those who actually follow in Christ?s footsteps. I could call myself a rocket scientist, but the ?fruitage? of my labor (how well the rocket performs, in this case) will show whether or not that is a true statement, or simply a label. So, I believe that all true Christians (as judged by God) will survive Armageddon, the end of the imperfect world as we know it, and the institution of a perfect new one. Whether that world is material or spirit, can not be proven. Therefore, knowing for a certainty whether it is material or spiritual is not necessary for our salvation. As for whether non-Christians will or will not be destroyed, that is for God to judge. Scripture clearly teaches that each of us will be judged as individuals. There are clear guidelines, however, in the Bible that make it clear that certain practices will prevent us from ?inheriting God?s Kingdom? (example: 1 Corinthians 6:9,10) Stating anything more is speculation.
Do you believe that we continue after death? If so, where do we "go"?
I believe that when we die, we are judged by God. Whether we go to heaven, a future time on a perfect Earth, to hell, hades, sheol, (which, IMO, is non-existence), etc, is for God to know and us to speculate on. He will be the judge. So, whether we continue on after death, or not, is for God to decide. Some percentage of us do have an afterlife, what that percentage is, none of us know.
and do our actions in life determine where we go?
Absolutely. The Scriptures teach us very clearly that is the case. We are judged by God based on what we have done, and have not done, and how we lived our life.
Do we have salvation by faith or by works? Or both? Or none?
We have salvation by faith; faith in God, his Son, and his Son?s ransom sacrifice?s power to buy us out of sin. Faith always results in works, the fruitage of Faith. Faith without works is dead faith., which is not really faith, it?s just a label. We can develop faith that bears fruitage by studying His word the Bible and doing our best to live our lives according to it?s teachings.
Is God separate from us? Or within us? Both?
I think it would be hard to argue that he?s not both. Separate as a being, but having ?breathed the sprit of life? into us, having ?made us in his image?, there?s some of him in al of us.
The only trouble I've ever had with Christians is that they don't always accept me and my beliefs. I am pagan, and they think that I have to be Christian (the exact reason I'm not sure. "to be saved" whatever that actually means). I'm not bashing anyone - honestly that is the only problem I've had with some Christians.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. While the Scriptures teach Christians to tolerate others, they do not tell us to accept others and their teachings, if they differ with ours. ?Hate the sin, but not the sinner?, goes hand in hand with this. As mentioned previously, according to Scripture, there are certain things, which if we practice them, preclude us from being saved. Christ was not all accepting, and neither are those who follow him. Sin is to be hated, and those who teach that sin is not sin, or that it doesn?t matter what you do, are in violation of Christian teachings. While only God can judge who is saved, the probability of our salvation increases as we learn and practice His teachings. If we deliberately live a sinful lifestyle, our chances of salvation are less than if we do our best to avoid sin and live an approved lifestyle. In the end, again, God will judge.
I started this thread because I know JWs who say that they're the only True christians.
As I stated earlier, hiding behind a ?Christian? group, sect, division, etc, assuming that if we are part of it, we automatically get salvation, is clearly in error. If we do that, we?re only fooling ourselves. Each of us will be judged as individuals, by God, not men. True Christians are those who truly put faith in God, his Son, and his Son?s ransom sacrifice?s power to buy us out of sin. As mentioned earlier, this kind of faith motivates us to the fruitage of works.
Abaddon,
Well, I'd like to ask a question Love_Truth;
I choose to believe that all Scripture as inspired of God.
The red highlight is mine and I congratulate you on your honesty.
... it is impossible to prove any of the above viewpoints, ...
The highlight is yours.
I?ve always been honest here, I?ve always made it clear that each of us makes a choice to believe, and have faith in, something(s). As you and I discussed in another thread, opinions, conclusions, viewpoints, etc, cannot be proven.
What I do not understand is this; If not conforming your life to these viewpoints (or beliefs) results in a negative outcome (i.e. if someone not living his life as a Christian results in a disadvantage, perhaps even destruction), then how is it fair if these viewpoints are unprovable and regional in their expression?
Good question. As I stated in reply to Sirona, (above), w hile only God can judge who is saved, the probability of our salvation increases as we learn and practice His teachings. If we deliberately live a sinful lifestyle, our chances of salvation are less than if we do our best to avoid sin and live an approved lifestyle. If we are ignorant of Christian teachings, it is for God to judge why. Was it because we were not exposed to the Bible? Did a ?Christian? do something to us so offensive that we never looked any further at the teachings of Christ? Did we ignore the Bible?s teachings, even though we were taught them? Was it our own selfish desire for something sinful that kept us from doing so? Millions of questions like these would have to be answered, and only one can do so. Only God, not man, can judge
It's like saying god will punish those who don't guess right and who are born in the wrong place - as I'm sure many people are Christians through accident of birth and would have ended up as a Muslim or a Hindu if born elsewhere.
Exactly. Again, I believe it comes down to why we aren?t following Christ. God will ultimately judge. If we casually brush off Christ?s teachings, after we have been exposed to them, we are putting ourselves in a potentially precarious position. If we are ignorant of them for other reasons, it is very hard top conclude that such ones would be judged negatively based on that alone. God will judge them, not man.
As you argue the viewpoints are not provable, citing that place of birth can't be considered unfair as people now have the opportunity to hear the Gospel worldwide doesn't work

As we?ve discussed previously, no viewpoints are irrefutably provable, period. I never said place of birth can?t be considered ?unfair? There are lots of aspects to life that are ?unfair?, and it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us individually, based on how we lived our lives, and how much we strived to please God.
donkey

Sirona,
You might try re-titling your thread if you want to exclude atheists such as myself from responding. How can you establish "truth" without inpput from both sides?
Christianity itself is the true faith
Whether one agrees with Xianity or not you realize this statement is an oxymoron? Saying any FAITH is the TRUE faith is impossible. If it were provably true it would not require faith. Then it would be knowledge. Anyway back to the role of exclusion for atheists like me.
Sirona

Donkey,
I'm pagan (non-christian - member of a neo-pagan religion), I didn't say Christianity was the "true faith". You seem to be quoting someone else and saying that I said it.
I don't necessary want to exclude atheists, but I also didn't want the thread to become the old debate again. We've had so many threads where someone says what they believe, and the skeptics immediately jump on it. I wanted to let christians have their say and plainly give us an idea how their religion is different from JWism.
Sirona

Mr Ben

Hello Sirona,

I think you especially will find this a very interesting read:

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? 
~Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy

Christians are just bad Pagans

Regards

FirstInLine

Sirona,
Salvation by nothing other than the grace of God is taught especially in the epistles of Paul.
Romans 4:5 -- explicit, Romans 6:23 inducive, Ephesians 2:8-9.
The problem for JWs is they are taught to read the same few verses that seem to contradict that to exaustion. So in the end they dont believe salvation is gifted without working for it.
FirstInLine

I just lost my entire reply to Abaddon and have to retype it now. What torture.
I wouldn't call that god. That would be an alien, even if it is one that conforms to Clarke's maxim about sufficiently advanced technologies
No, I did not say he/they did not create the universe.
Which is my idea of a monster,
good for you.
or at least (to be precise) my expectation of the character of god as someone raised in a Christian culture is that as I would find such inaction on part of an omnipotent entity immoral, and I as am made in god's image, then god would also find it immoral. Of course, those are enculturated expectations and god might actually have more in common with Quetzalcoati.
why are you on the computer and not spending all your time and money in your selfless fight to end human suffering?
And why do you say this? Adding 'logically' to a statement doesn't add to its validity unless you can back it up in the manner you say you can.
There is more than one sort of logic and I was not asked to prove what I believe just to state what I believe.
The word I would use is monster;
good
if a father could save his children from death but didn't as part of a game/plan/because they're corporeal existance is irrelevent/insert other sophistry, then many people would call him a monster. As it is below so it is above.
lets hear your resume
And why would god have a religion? Are you postulating an endless array of gods worshipping the one above them in the chain and being worshipped by the one directly below them?
Is that what I postulated?
You have been describing your viewpoint as logical, I'd love to see your reasoning on this.
No. Reasoning wont satisfy you. Evidence wont satisfy you. You want proof and according to your guidelines at that.
Er... yes, but if it were all made up then the lack of logic and the incomprehensibility would also be explicable on account of it being (drum roll) made up. How do you exclude this equivalently valid and simpler explanation for what I term ineffability (lack of understandability/logic)?
Natuarlly some one as logical as me would realise the possibility of it all being made up. You only want to consider the possibilities that make you happy though.
You are pre-supposing that a religion which 'made sense' would not be divine.
No I have given people something to ponder. Its not meant to be an arguement.
Explain your reasoning. Gravity and other demonstrably real phenomena 'make sense' in their everyday expression in the world. If god is a real phenomena why does it differ from other real phenomena by not making sense in the real world?
Replace "gravity" with the Higgs Field and your point loses merit. Is it logical to believe in the Higgs Field?
You ask a question which assumes I'll agree. I don't. Show me the logic of your assertion that our condition is mysterious..
People argue why we are here, where we came and where we are going endlessly. Are you saying you have found the answers?
Yes, this was pointed out a long time ago by people who got to thinking if god's all powerful why does he need, want, or be remotely interested in the worship of humans. It's a good reason to suspect the entire religion thing is made up.
Notice I accept that possiblity while when I pose similar ones you deride me?
You then said in the second post; the first one was nice, the second arsey; bi-polar today?;
No. My second post was my response to your latest one. I was composing what you call my first when you posted that one. My first one was nice because I am nice. My second one was in response to you being rude.
Calling someone insane for asking them to clarify
I did not call you insane and you did not ask to clarify. You said It seemed I was claiming to have absolute proof. After I so considerately and carefully crafted my wording to not sound as though I made that claim it REALLY pissed me off.
If anyone's being reactionary, it's you with your language ('insane' and what was the other one... oh, yeah - a jerk).
You started it. You know you started it. This thread has recorded who started it. You are being a TROLL.
You miss the metaphor; you were saying god could be unaware of us; I was agreeing with you that this could be so, and giving the example of us as wood shavings on a carpenter's floor who THINK they are part of god's plan but whom god is unaware of. The achievement of the shavings is not relevent to the metaphor.
I did not miss the metaphor (analogy). Its a faulty analogy and I demonstrated that. The achievement of the shavings is relevent to exposing the metaphor (analogy) as faulty.
Yeah, one of the reasons we'd either fight (verbally) like cat and dog in real-life or really get on well in real-life; you're opinionated too... didn't you know?
We were asked to say what we believe. I bent over backwards to accomodate people like you. But that wasnt good enough. You had to interrogate me. Your precious radical anti-theism was somehow threatened or you just couldnt stand to have some one think that their theistic position might some how be supported by logic and reason. And out you come acting like a little TROLL.
Saying "I believe there is a God with a strong conviction of logic." is implying that there is something objectively determinable with regard to your claim.
Uh oh, some one thinks his claim for belief in God is "objectively determinable", sound the Alarm!!!!!!!! RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!
In Britain there's an expression; all talk and no trousers.
I defer to my previous statement: Im not going to bother. You are obviously intelligent and if you are so willing to argue against it so passionately then what would be the point? .... My frustration and your delite. Im not going to give you the satisfaction.
You are not going to consider what I have to say, you havent already. You are just convinced you are right. I dont care. Good for you knowing you are right. I hope you have found comfort in your little box of rightness.
My mind is way more open than yours and until you prove that you care about more than being right there is no point to debating you. You can only lose a debate against a closed mind and I dont like debate to begin with. I prefer the free sharing of ideas.
Hahaha. Yeah... make out it's MY fault, of course... how weak...
you see what I mean? This is your mentality. sad and pathetic.
If you are unwilling to back up your claims about the logic of god's existence, then don't be surprised if your claims are viewed in the light of your inability to defend them.
Do you see how you come across? Why would some one as rational as myself be baited like that? You dont respect me.
defend what? Why must I defend? I have accepted your opinion that there is no god. Have I derided you for it? If you dont realise the atheist position can be logical as well as the theist position being logical then you dont know what logic is and are therefore illogical.
FirstInLine

Love_Truth,
I strongly disagree. The bulk of the Scriptural evidence points to a created Christ. Christ’s “deity” and the “implicit trinity” were decided on in 325 AD at the convening of the Council of Nicea,
I strongly disagree. For starters the scriptures say the Son created all that was created. the Council of Nicea did not decide on an implicit Trinity. That was an explicit Trinity.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-frames-start-page-SYBTT.htm
In the emd God will judge us as individuals, and it can be argued that either belief (true Monotheism or Trinitarian) is acceptable, though I find much more evidence for the former.
If you knew what the word Trinity meant you would not imply it is false monotheism. Monotheism means one god as you know and a Trinity is certainly not more than one God. In fact preserving the Christ as the One Lord, king and a little god is by denifition polytheism.
Disagree. IMO, It is for Satan, his demons, and humans too. I believe hell is simply a state of non- existence. Knowing what the nature of hell is, is not necessary for our salvation.
The state of non-existence is debateable for humans but IMO not for the devil and his angels. Its a place that was created for them.
I do not believe hell is a literal place
I couldnt find where I said that but if I did there is a typo there somewhere or the context was removed.
I agree, but I would add that, IMO, all “Christian” (and non-Christian) religions, sects, divisions, etc, are all Apostate, part of Babylon the Great, as they teach doctrines of men side by side with Scripture, and make them essentially equal.
You are the lone bearer of truth I take it. Truly amazing that Christ was unable to preserve a Church and that the devil was strong enough to overcome his attempts.
Yes, it is faith in Christ that saves. As for the “ selected pages of catholic theologians” comment, that is your opinion, not a fact. The canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible, as well as evidence of their divine inspiration abounds. I frankly find this particular comment of yours ignorant and self-aggrandizing, no more, no less.
I meant to show that Christ is to be the object of our faith not the bible. Yes I was showing the difference in rank between Christ and the bible. Yes, the bible was canonized by men and they debated what should be included in the canon.
Another pompous, arrogant comment of yours, FirstInLine. Do you know the “ the true Doctrines of Christianity”?
If you say so (pompous)... I know some of them. Lets see... The Deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of the body, the physical resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness of sins...
Answer: absolutely not. Nor can you prove that you do, no more than anyone else can irrefutably prove their conclusions on what ” the true Doctrines of Christianity ” are.
well what about this little comment of yours?
I agree, but I would add that, IMO, all “Christian” (and non-Christian) religions, sects, divisions, etc, are all Apostate, part of Babylon the Great, as they teach doctrines of men side by side with Scripture, and make them essentially equal.
I will admit you were careful to qualify it with IMO, but that would be like me saying IMO you and all people that believe what you believe are devil worshippers and are so blinded by the devil that you gladly worship the devil and dont know it. The IMO doesnt really soften the blow does it? BTW I am not calling you a devil worshipper just using it for demonstration purposes because it is roughly equivalent to what you were saying.
funkyderek

I agree, but I would add that, IMO, all ?Christian? (and non-Christian) religions, sects, divisions, etc, are all Apostate, part of Babylon the Great, as they teach doctrines of men side by side with Scripture, and make them essentially equal.

All except yours, which is the true Christianity, right?

The Truth About Christianity - Give your views

Share this