Traditional Christianity: Discerning the Real Faith from False Teachings

[Verto]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+13:21-23&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Mark 13
21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[1] !' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

So anyone who speaks about Christ is lying?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, in most cases, if they aren't lying, they're misinformed

Religionists being a case in point

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Pray for My forgiveness, Kuciwalker, for you have sinned. You have, by injudicious quoting, caused me to read several lines of snide Bloomtalk.

Dear Elok- I hope you will grow to learn the difference between wit and humour and what you regularly puke up in your threads whenever it is you think you're going graduate out of your mental shallows to be funny.

If you're labouring under the assumption that you have grasped the thorny nettle of irony, satire or wit and are competent to use its fruit, you are due for a rude awakening.

'You might not start topics on the subject'

Obi Gyn

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.


Find me a thread I've started where I've done what Mr. Nice Holy Roller's done.

Otherwise you either can't read English, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I do in order to defend a fellow adherent of your superstition- not something that Christians don't have experience with.

I don't generate large posts replete with the moral philosophy of atheist thinkers in order to show the world what I believe in- what I do is offer counter arguments for those who would readily believe the erroneous assertions of others who cannot even get factual elements of the birth narratives of their chosen deity correct, and think that religious texts are history, when they ain't.

Lying for god, Obi Gyn?

'How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived. '

Eusebius would approve. As would Jerome, and John Chrysostom, et cetera, et cetera,....

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by molly bloom
. . .or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I do in order to defend a fellow adherent of your superstition- not something that Christians don't have experience with.

You're absolutely right on this one, molly. Too many times I've evangelized to non-Christians and they just try to play stupid to win an argument. Playing stupid is just one of the many ways to troll. I use to fall for this trap too many times in the past, but now with experience I'm keenly aware of what's going on and I don't fall for this kind of rhetoric anymore.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Sava
Lincoln: As somewhat of an atheist (I'm probably more agnostic), I believe we can't possibly know if there is a God. But I do find the notion of God to be rather silly. Christianity (and other deity based religions) seems like adults playing with an imaginary friend.

The only reasonable belief system is the one that doesn't jump to conclusions when reason fails to explain everything. Science poses theories to existence. While science may not help us understand why we exist, it helps us understand the processes through which we were created. You can believe in an all-powerful intelligence or creator if you want... perhaps someone did create us. I don't know for sure either way. But science has proven that the Bible's creation story is a myth. Shouldn't we treat such literature as myth and parable when it is certain it isn't literal truth?

Thanks for your post, Sava. First off, Urban Ranger is wrong (I won't say as usual here). I am NOT a young earth creationist. What I am is a believer in Jesus Christ and the message he gave to mankind as it is recorded in the Bible. As far as biblical interpretation goes, I really do not know the correct interpretation, especially of the old testament. My take generally on the Bible is that it is a spiritual book and must be understood from a spiritual perspective. It is foolhardy in my opinion to expect the truths hiden in it's text to be understood when Jesus specifically said that he has purposely not revealed them except as he sees fit. An example is found here:

Mt:13:9: Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mt:13:10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mt:13:11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt:13:12: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mt:13:13: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt:13:14: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mt:13:15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mt:13:16: But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

and also here:

1Cor:2:11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Cor:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


You're absolutely right on this one, molly. Too many times I've evangelized to non-Christians.

If you'd only stopped there we would have found common ground.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for your post, Sava. First off, Urban Ranger is wrong (I won't say as usual here). I am NOT a young earth creationist.

The website in your sig says differently, Lincoln. So's your book.

[Spiffor]

I didn't wade through the OP in its entirety, but I agree with the point I saw: traditional religion, by its unwillingness to adapt and change the doctrine, is bound to always be far from the truth.

And this is what makes science, despite all its flaws, superior to religion in the pursuit of the truth: science questions everything it has produced, and adapts permanently. Religion keeps the same outdated texts as a reference, and tries to adapt the world to the texts (see the creationist craze, or pretty much every "God in the gaps" argument), instead of the other way around.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I didn't wade through the OP in its entirety, but I agree with the point I saw: traditional religion, by its unwillingness to adapt and change the doctrine, is bound to always be far from the truth.

This can only be acceptable to those who believe the true gospel/religion has never been on the earth.

[Japher]

Can you "believe" the truth or do "believe" something to be true?

Truth is something that is known, not believed.

[Ben Kenobi]

As somewhat of an atheist (I'm probably more agnostic), I believe we can't possibly know if there is a God.

Actually, that's an agnostic position. If we cannot know, then we cannot say conclusively that God does not exist.

I would argue that you are right to say that if God does not want us to know about him, then there is no way that we will. However, God does want us to know him, and therefore we can come to know him.

But I do find the notion of God to be rather silly. Christianity (and other deity based religions) seems like adults playing with an imaginary friend.

Are there any other kinds of religions?

Secondly, if God is nothing other than our imaginary friend, why not have someone softer, who does not judge us for our actions?

The only reasonable belief system is the one that doesn't jump to conclusions when reason fails to explain everything.

True. However, I think Christianity has thought out many things, and bases them on the experiences that people have had throughout the centuries in trying to understand the ways of God.

But science has proven that the Bible's creation story is a myth. Shouldn't we treat such literature as myth and parable when it is certain it isn't literal truth?

How has science proven the first part of Genesis to be a myth?

[Ben Kenobi]

So anyone who speaks about Christ is lying?

Not exactly. The passage seems to only deal with those who say that Christ has returned, of whom we have seen many such prophets since his death. When Christ returns, everyone will know. It will not be hidden, and he will come as a thief in the night, in that he will come when no one expects him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Otherwise you either can't read English, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I do/

Actually, Molly, these are my words.

You might not start topics on the subject, but you aren't shy to quote atheists on the topic to defend your beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, so why are you apologising?

I suggest you quit picking on someone who's trying to defend your conduct against other 'religionists'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

And this is what makes science, despite all its flaws, superior to religion in the pursuit of the truth: science questions everything it has produced,

How so?

Paul admonishes Christians to 'test all things, and to hold fast to that which is good.'

How is this any different from science?

Religion keeps the same outdated texts as a reference, and tries to adapt the world to the texts

As opposed to Aristotle, I suppose, or Ptolemy and his epicycles.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not exactly. The passage seems to only deal with those who say that Christ has returned, of whom we have seen many such prophets since his death. When Christ returns, everyone will know. It will not be hidden, and he will come as a thief in the night, in that he will come when no one expects him.

Yes, I was just wondering why he was connecting it to the LDS Church - the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, etc.