Again, you seem to be saying that nearly every other church has changed but Johos remain true to Jesus and God. Well, here we go again. You're saying Johos are right and everyone else is wrong based on a subjective interpretation.

This is just one big circle, isn't it?

Edit- No, he didn't say that his church was superior to anyone exactly. But it's implied isn't it? He has a problem with religions that change, so he shouldn't be a part of a religion that has changed.

All of this is correct, but let us realize something:

There is nothing wrong with playing a musical instrument. In fact in the bible There is nothing wrong with making a game. There is nothing wrong with making videos or entertainment. It only becomes wrong when we put said things before God. When our main purpose in life differs from serving God, then we are wrong. We need some form of recreation in our lives.
I can make a video game, just as long as I don't spend more time, efforts and dedication on it, than on serving and learning about God. Balance is required for success.



You are looking at from a very imperfect and human point of view, I see it differently:

My belief is that said children will be resurrected on judgment day to be given a chance to decide where their loyalty and belief stands, for their parents and the nation's leader choose poorly.

Then there is Justice, and the children, who were killed "innocently" (they were born with sin), will have a chance to decide for themselves. This is a perfect system, where everyone living or dead, will get or have had their opportunity.

Anything different is pretty much proving faithless in my religion, and most religions say the same thing.

I do respect some one who tries to defend his beliefs, yet I pity the one who says : "LOL! All religions are good! All are true!"

So as long as I spend more time on god then on porno I'm good to go?

See, I feel the opposite. I respect someone who tries to find commonality in different religions, in order to bring about communication and peace, but I pity someone who defends Jehovah's Witnesses, because they're just a cult of retards.

I cannot show respect for some one who writes and wishes for death of those who protect us, the police. Such an inhuman, not to mention unchristian thing to wish evil upon other fellow men, and then has the guts to come in here and call me a retard, which by the way is a biblical prophecy that many would ridiculize us, thanks for fulfilling it and fueling me even more to believe that I am in the true religion as well as making me rejoice for such an event.

I don't know if thats a joke or if you are serious. Its hard to tell over a chat board. Then again, I expect common sense to answer that for everyone.

You pity the one who says "all religions are true/good lawl"? Are you calling me an idiot? Just call me an idiot next time, don't try and hide it with phrases.

So. Show me where I said all religions are true. Please, do find the post where I said that.

OK, Gold, I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can and then I'm done with this thread because you are acting too close-minded to actually gain anything from this thread.

People read the Bible differently. People get different things from the Bible.

This is why my church allows drinking, but the Baptist church down the street from it does not. This is because the people who founded the Catholic faith read the Bible to support drinking (NOT drunkeness) whereas the other church reads the Bible and thinks it says to do away with drinking altogether.

Now, which of our churches is right? You can't possibly take a side. You can't. Because neither side is correct. This is what we like to call "subjective".

Every Christian religion is filled with holes like this. Jehova Witness too. And you're trying to say that the way Jehova Witness reads the Bible is right. After reading that example, how can you say that Jehova Witness read the Bible right and every single one of the other THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of churches that read it differently are wrong?

I'm not saying all are good and true. I'm saying how can you act so high and mighty about something that is 50/50 of being right, at best?

I probably spent too much time on this post, but now I'm done with this thread.

I expect that your reasoning, logic and rationality can answer such things for you.

Did not Jesus drink wine as well as his disciples? What about the weddings that they attended to and where wine was served? What about water being turned into wine?

Saying that neither is right is sinning against your own faith, and ultimately makes you a coward because you won't stand by what you believe.

I am done with this thread myself, I have stood by what I believe, and I have done ultimately what I consider right, based on what I have learned.

No, I'm serious. Justify the rules against sexual stuff. Srsly.

It's in the Bible, if only you would just read it!

Did you use the phrase "Occam's razor" and say "the author hadn't really bothered to take the time to count the legs on an insect." in the same sentence? Seriously? I dare your to find one person over four who doesn't know the number of legs on a insect. You can even ask crazy people. It's much more likely it's just a cultural difference regarding the definition of a leg.



The precision of measurements has nothing to do with the meaning or accuracy of the text. Your analogy is poor. Also, with reasonable conversion ratios given to the units "spans" and "cubits" in say, inches, the measurements do come out to 3.14. The diameter is a whole hand's width in breadth.


They are referring to Joseph's father-in-law when they say father. The blood line are all through the male. This is confirmed through extra Biblical study of Jewish culture.



The dietary laws were clearly abrogated in the New Testament. Also, I don't understand your fixation on homosexuality being wrong. It's like you've forgotten that fornication is wrong as well. That would mean you, not just gay people.

*******

None of your arguments are strong enough to stand along, and they are not even very compelling all together. Most of them rely on your interpretation of the end times which are derived from a whole lot of fairly unspecific prophecies.


Again, that's all fine and good if I subscribe to your interpretation of the the end times prophecies, which are more than open for debate. That and if you ignore all the evidence contradicting your claims which has been so kindly provided by Pagewizard.



You started this thread in a pathetic attempt to gain popularity by bashing a group of devout pacifists. Don't act so abused.



But three persons making up that God. There is far, far too much evidence for this for it to be discounted or written off. We can reasonably fill in the few gaps between what is explicitly said to arrive at standard trinitarian beliefs. Early Christians actually spent a lot of times formulating creeds to defend the faith from anti-trinitarian heresies.




I'm pretty sure that that blatantly denies Catholic doctrine. In fact they take an incredibly hard line stance of "our way or the highway" when it comes to interpretation of scripture, almost all of which incidentally would not stand on it's own with out being back up by church authority.

Case in point:

"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24)."

-Council of Trent

Ephesians 2:8-9: "8. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9. not a result of works, so that no one may boast."



Who said biblical morality had anything do with being nice to people? Biblical law is based on what God wants (for the purpose of revealing sin), not on what makes people nice to each other. If that were the case why would he have had Israel lay waste entire regions. Why would he wipe the world out in a Great Flood? Surely all of those solution would have been worse for them than anything that those societies were doing to each other? The purpose of the law is pleasing God who isn't just good, he defines right. He creates the standard, he doesn't adhere to one. Call him what you want, it's his standard, not yours that goes.

Speaking of your standard, how did you come to the arbitrary conclusion that hurting or helping people defines morality? With out some kind of external standard your standard is just as valid, and therefore just as meaningless as someone's who says morality is defined by doing what ever it takes to better them self about others.

The Bible is true about thing, then. Definitely expect to be "ridiculized." In fact, if "ridiculizing" is what you want, consider me a scion. Say what you want about the police, but I'm sure you have a very different opinion of La Migra.

I just need to give some closing thoughts:

Migration, I realize they do their job and a legal thing. Thats fine, its specific individuals who take what they consider justice into their hands and do things. ITS INDIVIDUALS. NOT ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONS, OR PEOPLE AFFILIATED WITH THEM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERES A COUPLE ROTTEN APPLES HERE OR THERE.

To Obi_Kwiet. Please tell me that you have done more than just read the bible, and in fact you have done extensive research of where the trinity came from and where other such beliefs also came from. They root way back to when God's people were captured in Babylon, and many Babylonian beliefs perverted their own. Then when they came out they started to let go of these beliefs. (I believe the book: The Two Babylons, while it does not disprove the trinity, it does give reference and witness to this event) Obviously the idea of 3 persons in 1 God is not new, in fact it originated with pagan theology.

I'm pretty sure calvinism is all about predestination.

Two people can read the same thing and interpret it differently.

The thing I find stupid about Christians is that they find the bible so infallible. First of all, it was written by men, not God. And the Gospels? Those weren't even written by the people after which they're named! The early Christian church (aka, Catholic church) pick and chose which scriptures they wanted to put in the New Testament. Many important documents were altered, discarded, or not even discovered at the time of its creation.

So why is the Bible THE TRUTH?

You could say the same thing about Joseph Smith.

Not to mention most of it is based off of barley legible fragments of ancient parchment with authors that was born usually 200-600 years after Jesus's time.

Definitely.

From Wikipedia;

The Reformed tradition was advanced by theologians such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Huldrych Zwingli and also influenced English reformers such as Thomas Cranmer and John Jewel. Yet due to John Calvin's great influence and role in the confessional and ecclesiastical debates throughout the 17th century, the tradition generally became known as Calvinism. Today, this term also refers to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed churches, of which Calvin was an early leader, and the system is best known for its doctrines of predestination and total depravity.


From Wikipedia on predestination;

The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is a doctrine of Calvinism which deals with the question of the control God exercises over the world. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass."[1] The second use of the word "predestination" applies this to the salvation, and refers to the belief that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins, even their original sin. The former is called "unconditional election", and the latter "reprobation". In Calvinism, men must be predestined and effectually called (regenerated/born again) unto faith by God before they will even wish to believe or wish to be justified.

Triune ideals of god come from greece (at least, the ideas in the bible) not persia.

Although, if you REALLY want to get into Babylonian influence, look up Mithras.

The Mormons have a good answer to that Johos have a ****ty one.

this thread needs to die

So basicly what your saying is that gods a total *****. Oh, and I happen to think the moral standard of just trying not to hurt other people physically/mentally(maybe not mentally>__>) is a pretty damned good way to live.

http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html

^_______^

you misused the word scion.

You do if you're a kid who gets to play outside all day and then after catching an insect bothers to count (I would speculate that most children at that time would be working fields etc from an early age). There are plenty of arthropods out there for kids to catch with all sorts of numbers of legs. Spiders have eight although this can look like ten depending on its pedipalps, woodlice have 16 and so on. So it's not far-fetched to suggest that they hadn't bothered to count.
You're still missing the entire point. I said that "Biblical literalism is retarded". And I mentioned a few instances where the Bible is wrong or appears to be self contradictory. Treating a book as if it cannot contain an error means that whatever is in it will be treated as truth. The convolutions you take in justifying its errors render it practically unfalsifiable which means that bad behaviour and terrible rules can be enforced without the possibility of alteration in the face of contrary evidence.

You've completely ignored my question to argue over frankly piffling details I conceded already. We can both see that they weren't far wrong in their measurements but taking the bible to be absolutely inerrant and literal one would be forced to deduce that pi = 3, however, if we can see that some of this is wrong/inaccurate and needs further explanation or simply to understand where the text comes from then why is this not applied to other parts of the text?


Fair enough, thanks for enlightening me.


I would do if there were groups treating unwed couples like dirt and using it as an excuse to deny rights as has been done to homosexuals (a group that still has separate rules in several countries including my own on the basis of religion). I'm not sure how my one mention is a fixation but whatever. The way I see morality is that for something to actually be morally wrong it needs a reason, otherwise it's simply a preference. My problem is and always has been that a bunch of people are using a book that few agree on as reasoning for treating all sorts of people in a generally crappy manner.

But hey, tell me why fornication is wrong? And don't say "God says so" or something to that effect because that is simply your opinion and preference.