question about Christianity

#104
#104
therealUT said:
If you believe that your belief re: creation is correct, then you, whether or not you explicitly state it, believe that the Hindus are wrong. By not coming out and stating it, you are not fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

Your argument style is comical. I bet your wife has never won a fight in your house.
You keep harping on this Hinduism thing but it has no point. Why must I publicly disrespect another religion just because it isn't mine? That seems to be the way you guys look at stuff. If you disagree, you must mock it and argue just to argue.
I do disagree with Hinduism...what I know of it. What does that have to do with anything? The point is that I never came on here trying to prove it wrong or belittled their beliefs. My priest has a great friend that is Jewish. You guys would rather see them picking fights or arguing over who had the real correct religion.
 
#105
#105
Panthro said:
Your argument style is comical. I bet your wife has never won a fight in your house.
You keep harping on this Hinduism thing but it has no point. Why must I publicly disrespect another religion just because it isn't mine? That seems to be the way you guys look at stuff. If you disagree, you must mock it and argue just to argue.
I do disagree with Hinduism...what I know of it. What does that have to do with anything? The point is that I never came on here trying to prove it wrong or belittled their beliefs. My priest has a great friend that is Jewish. You guys would rather see them picking fights or arguing over who had the real correct religion.
Click to expand...

I was just making sure that whether or not you call it a "fictional myth" you think of it that way.

You feel disrespected because your beliefs are questioned; that is a personal problem that I have little, if anything, to do with. I question beliefs and I search for truths; if you do not want to be a part of such a conversation, you can easily excuse yourself. That said, don't try to deflect serious criticism into your beliefs by objecting to the accurate use of the terms "magic" and "myth".

That said, may I ask which Christian creation story you believe (since, it is logically impossible to believe in the literal truth of both)?
 
#106
#106
His point is that you contend one religion more true than another. He means one leap of faith can't be more true than another. Or I may have misunderstood.
 
#107
#107
KiffinKiller said:
Um, so you won't accept someone who doubts their beliefs? Can one not believe in God despite their reservations about the details?
Click to expand...

People have the right to believe what they want to.

IMO I could not call myself a Christian if I did not believe in creation.
 
#111
#111
At some point, applying the rules of logic to any religious text or belief system is ridiculous. Not sure where that point is, exactly, but confident that OP is well past it.
 
#112
#112
jwells said:
You can't live without breathing but can't breath without living.

Who cares?
Click to expand...

Your analogy is incorrect. You can live without breathing, although you will not live very long, and life comes before breath for each and every newborn.

Obviously, you care enough to chime in.
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
At some point, applying the rules of logic to any religious text or belief system is ridiculous. Not sure where that point is, exactly, but confident that OP is well past it.
Click to expand...

You do not think logic and reason (man's highest faculties, even according to Christian Theology) should play a part in trying to understand the greatest mysteries and truths? That, in my opinion, sounds much more ridiculous.
 
#114
#114
therealUT said:
According to Christian Canon and Dogma, one cannot even receive the blessing of faith without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism, which one cannot receive (even informally) without believing in the divinity of Christ, which one cannot believe without accepting the authority of Scripture, which one cannot accept without faith, which one cannot receive without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism, which one cannot receive (even informally) without believing in the divinity of Christ, which one cannot believe without accepting the authority of Scripture, which one cannot accept without faith, which one cannot receive...
Click to expand...

Depends on which Christians you talk to.
 
#115
#115
nbakerld said:
Depends on which Christians you talk to.
Click to expand...

I have yet to find a Trinitarian Christian sect that does not include this in their Canon, Doctrine, or Dogma. Basically, if one believes that Jesus is fully-god and fully-man, this tenet holds water.
 
#116
#116
therealUT said:
According to Christian Canon and Dogma, one cannot even receive the blessing of faith without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism, which one cannot receive (even informally) without believing in the divinity of Christ, which one cannot believe without accepting the authority of Scripture, which one cannot accept without faith, which one cannot receive without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism, which one cannot receive (even informally) without believing in the divinity of Christ, which one cannot believe without accepting the authority of Scripture, which one cannot accept without faith, which one cannot receive...
Click to expand...


I never knew that I could not recievce the blessing of faith without the IIHS.

IIHS-HLDI: Crash Testing*&*Highway Safety
 
#117
#117
Gramps said:
I never knew that I could not recievce the blessing of faith without the IIHS.

IIHS-HLDI: Crash Testing*&*Highway Safety
Click to expand...

IIHS is the Internal Instigation of the Holy Spirit; again, I am disappointed, yet not surprised, that fervent Christians do not even understand the terminology and acronyms that have been around for thousands of years regarding their faith.
 
#118
#118
therealUT said:
I have yet to find a Trinitarian Christian sect that does not include this in their Canon, Doctrine, or Dogma. Basically, if one believes that Jesus is fully-god and fully-man, this tenet holds water.
Click to expand...

Maybe that excludes all the Christ-based faiths that came to my mind. The 3 manifestations of one God has never made sense to me. Growing up as a Mormon in the Bible belt I was always chastised for believing "weird" things. Every religion is weird if it's foreign to you. If Jesus is God the Father, why does he pray to himself? Why does Jesus claim that he forsake himself? It doesn't make sense, yet in their minds it's not weird at all.

And if you are wondering what the Mormon explanation of the trinity is: they are 3 separate beings. The Bible is not to be taken literally in every sense. There's a lot of symbolism. When it says they "are one" it's symbolic and means "of one purpose".
 
Last edited:
#119
#119
therealUT said:
IIHS is the Internal Instigation of the Holy Spirit; again, I am disappointed, yet not surprised, that fervent Christians do not even understand the terminology and acronyms that have been around for thousands of years regarding their faith.
Click to expand...

Just cause they don't use the terms a theologist might use doesn't mean they don't know what it is. IP dropped "theogenesis" on me 2 weeks ago and I had never heard of the term though I was very well aware of the belief/theory.
 
#120
#120
nbakerld said:
Maybe that excludes all the Christ-based faiths that came to my mind. The 3 manifestations of one God has never made sense to me. Growing up as a Mormon in the Bible belt I was always chastised for believing "weird" things. Every religion is weird if it's foreign to you. If Jesus is God the Father, why does he pray to himself? Why does Jesus claim that he forsake himself? It doesn't make sense, yet in their minds it's not weird at all.

And if you are wondering what the Mormon explanation of the trinity is: they are 3 separate beings. The Bible is not to be taken literally in every sense. There's a lot of symbolism. When it says they "are one" it's symbolic and means "of one purpose".
Click to expand...

I never said nor have thought that any religion is weird; they are all attempts, however literal or allegorical they may be, at either granting comfort and belonging or searching for a greater metaphysical truth. Calling a religion weird for what is written in their Canon is the same, IMO, as calling a poem weird for not being real enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
nbakerld said:
Just cause they don't use the terms a theologist might use doesn't mean they don't know what it is. IP dropped "theogenesis" on me 2 weeks ago and I had never heard of the term though I was very well aware of the belief/theory.
Click to expand...

If one is entering into a theological discussion one might want to refrain from mocking someone for using the theologically correct terms simply because the mocker is showing his a** for being ignorant in the discussion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
therealUT said:
I never said nor have thought that any religion is weird; they are all attempts, however literal or allegorical they may be, at either granting comfort and belonging or searching for a greater metaphysical truth. Calling a religion weird for what is written in their Canon is the same, IMO, as calling a poem weird for not being real enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't calling you on it. I'd be hypocrite myself because I do think religion in every form is weird. Even atheism is weird to me. Why waste my time convincing myself and others that God doesn't exist? I'll choose to play video games instead.
 
#123
#123
therealUT said:
If one is entering into a theological discussion one might want to refrain from mocking someone for using the theologically correct terms simply because the mocker is showing his a** for being ignorant in the discussion.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I come to this site and enter these discusssions in hopes of gaining some knowledge on different religions and beliefs. I have never tried to mock you or anyone else on volnation.

You always base all Christianity on the Catholic Church. If anyone ever disagrees with you, you try to belittle them.

The CC and Baptist may both be considered "Christian Churches" but their doctrines are very different.

You stated "According to Christian Canon and Dogma, one cannot even receive the blessing of faith without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism,"

That is far from the truth per the Baptist Doctrine.

I respect that you place your beliefs in the CC and I would never mock you for that.
 
#124
#124
Gramps said:
I come to this site and enter these discusssions in hopes of gaining some knowledge on different religions and beliefs. I have never tried to mock you or anyone else on volnation.

You always base all Christianity on the Catholic Church. If anyone ever disagrees with you, you try to belittle them.

The CC and Baptist may both be considered "Christian Churches" but their doctrines are very different.

You stated "According to Christian Canon and Dogma, one cannot even receive the blessing of faith without the IIHS, which one cannot receive without baptism,"

That is far from the truth per the Baptist Doctrine.

I respect that you place your beliefs in the CC and I would never mock you for that.
Click to expand...

It is not at all far from the belief of Baptist Doctrine; in fact, it is completely in accord with Baptist Doctrine. Note, I stated the Baptism can be informal, as the formal ceremony is merely a representation of the inner conversion; however, the inner conversion cannot take place without a belief in Jesus, which cannot take place without a belief in the authority of scripture, which cannot take place without the grace from the Holy Spirit, which (according to the NT) is not granted to hose who do not choose to accept (informal baptism).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top