[quote]Fishlips wrote:
I guess this scripture doesn’t mean much to you:
1 Cor 1:10 - “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”
[/quote]
Contrary to your assumption, this scripture perfectly conveys my point. In fact, St. Paul implores the faithful of his time to share the same faith and to be united in doctrines and encourages them to abstain from any deviation. What’s even more interesting is that those whom he was addressing were Orthodox Christians! He wasn’t talking to a Lutheran or a Jehovah’s Witness or a Roman Catholic or a Mormon; these heretics didn’t sprout up until later decades. He was talking to his brothers in the Faith - Orthodox Christians.
[quote]
You need to understand Stella, I in now way have said the Bible does not stand alone. It’s stands alone in having sole authority for Christians. Having a teacher for the scriptures doesn’t mean that teacher shall teach anything other than what is in the scriptures. A good teacher can add interesting sub-points, experiences etc. to help you but it doesn’t mean it belongs in the textbook, just like the apostles would have said many helpful things but it didn’t make those words inspired. If you wanted to be a doctor you can’t just go buy all the texts, read them and hope to become a doctor. A good teacher helps one understand the information in the text.[/quote]
I agree with the latter point; ie. that a teacher is needed to serve as a guide. The important question is what tradition the guide will be utilizing to express or interpret the Bible. Whereas I can interpret the Bible as a Baptist or a Pentecostal or a Presbyterian, I use the Orthodox Christian tradition. Why? Because the Orthodox Christian Church authored, produced, and compiled the Bible! It would be unreasonable to use any other interpretation. Since you’re so big on reason, I just thought I’d mention that…
Thanks for that scripture by the way. As we read the Bible more and more, it continues to blossom in favor of the Orthodox Christian Church. Keep 'em coming!
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
(2) Although the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is a mystery accepted by faith, it’s critical to note that the Eucharist has always been recognized as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Church since the beginning of Christianity and before the New Testament was ever written.[/quote]
So where should I put communion in my food log? Is it carbs, or is it protein?
Fun faith fact: If you burp after communion, it tastes like bread, not like flesh. That means that the gas, on the way up, untransubtantiates from human flesh gas to host bread gas. The Mystery is grand.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.[/quote]
Especially the good parts like the dashing of babies on rocks or the boiling of little kids; or feeding yet other children to bears because they laughed at a prophet.
Fishlips: again, I’ll get back to the other questions you posed in time. Thanks. I did have a couple of questions that came up, and a response to one.
Question: Why the the authors of the Gospels apparently edit and re-edit them-especially John, several times, in some cases over decades?
Question: Do you not need to interpret John’s meaning to understand why the days of the week for the last supper and crucifixion are different than the synoptics-that he meant to parallel Jesus death with the slaying of the Passover lambs?
Question: Which books, such as the apocrypha from the Orthodox bible as well as others should be excluded and why?
Questions: Do you believe in baptism, should we confess our sins, should we have a practice to commemorate the last supper to “do this in rememberence?” and finally, how do you/should one worship?
Answer/Explanation about Christ’s last words:
Christ said Eli Eli Lamasabacthani, then gave up the Ghost. The words “into thy hands I commend my spirit” are the words of givin up the Ghost. John used the term “it is finished” because it was important to him to show that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies. Although he was the one of the three who was probably there, he also exercised some writing freedom as pointed out before. Although this sounds like it requires interpretation.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.[/quote] The Bible doesn’t say anything of the sort. Nice job throwing your own words into the matter, thus estranging doogie further from the truth. Being that you preached a lie, I can’t blame doogie for his next statement:
[quote]doogie wrote:
That quickly brings an end to this discussion. It’s hard to argue with,“It’s messed up only because God wants it that way.”[/quote]
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Why do you study the bible? My guess is academically/interest oriented. Good questions! doogie wrote:
Used to be a Christian. Then I had those questions that can’t be answered. Then I read THE AGE OF REASON.[/quote]
I’m willing to bet you weren’t an Orthodox Christian doogie. That’s why I warn atheists to stand clear of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism; they do more damage than good sometimes and to undue the corrupted teachings they’ve absorbed can take years.
I pray for my former Orthodox Christian brethren in western Europe who converted one millennium ago to atheism when Roman Catholicism’s corrupt practices & teachings swept across their lands. Five hundred years later, some of those who still clung to the Christian faith protested against the Roman Catholic church (a.k.a. Protestants) and erroneously formulated their own corrupt teachings instead of finding their way back to the Orthodox Christian Church.
doggie, aside from what Fishlips has preached, realize that the Orthodox Christian Church views the Holy Scriptures as being written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. These Apostles developed scriptures to express who Jesus Christ was/is/will always be, testified of His works & His miracles, and they wrote letters to exhort or admonish the Orthodox Christian churches. Although the Bible is truthful in its accounts, and various features of Christ’s Life are expressed by its various authors, I’d hesitate to say that the phrases you quoted concerning the Crucifixion of Christ are contradictions. The accounts may be different, yes, but the fact of the matter is that the different authors were focused on preaching the meaning of Christ’s actions and Life in efforts to guide us towards salvation. Stay focused on this goal.
The Apostles undoubtedly preached the message of salvation by orally transmitting such knowledge to the faithful as well as through written formats such as are included in the Bible. The Bible is not the literal Word of God, that’s what Jesus Christ is. God isn’t a book. The Bible is more appropriately understood as the word about God. I could’ve got tangled up on your point many years ago too.
My faith and worship is in Jesus Christ alone, not in a compilation of expressions (the Bible) about Him. If the Bible was the sole authority which could guide us towards salvation, then why didn’t Jesus Christ write the Bible and pass around copies of it instead of preaching for three years and then establishing the Orthodox Christian Church? He was obviously guiding man towards His Church. Perhaps your perspective on the significance of this Church was tainted…
I know of other areas where the Bible shows inconsistency (ie. the legion demoniacs), but this does not hinder the messages I extract from the Bible. The message: God became incarnate in the flesh, preached eternal life, conquered the powers of sin & death, and provided us with His Church so that slowly but surely we could be cleansed of sin and prepare for His infinite love in the Day of Judgment. The Bible speaks about many of these events, but it also leads man to the Church which He instituted. I guess that’s why I’m baffled about why people adhere to only 1% or 50% or 99% of the Bible instead of the full 100% like the Orthodox Christians do… To follow the Orthodox Christian Church is to be in perfect harmony with the Bible.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fun faith fact: If you burp after communion, it tastes like bread, not like flesh. That means that the gas, on the way up, untransubtantiates from human flesh gas to host bread gas. The Mystery is grand.[/quote]
Pukie, If it tastes like bread and wine in your mouth, why would God make it taste like anything else in your stomach? The transubstantiation is a mystery. I never asked you to believe this. It’s a mystery because it’s accepted by faith, not by any means of human rationalization.
Think before you post, lest you prove yourself a moron.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I can condense the whole thread to a few lines:
“My Dogma beats your Dogma. Does not! Does so! Does not you heretic! Does so you heathen!” Repeat 'til Judgment Day.
[/quote]
pukie, and you think you’re doing anything different by coming here and challenging everyone else’s views? How hypocritical of you.
Think before you post, lest you prove yourself a moron.
[quote]pookie wrote:
My point of contention was simply that I felt that the premise “There is only One Truth. Any deviation from that truth makes it a lie.” made for some extremely fragile “Truth”. Entrusting man, an eminently faillible being, as the keeper of that truth practically garantees “a lie” after very few generations.
It seems that the Orthodox Church (Greek? Eastern? other?) bases it’s legitimacy on that premise.
Hence the regular encouragment in the scriptures to ‘look’ for truth, ‘search’ for it etc. denoting effort is involved which will be rewarded.
Does this response make sense and satisfy you? I trust your query was in sincerity and not simply argumentative.
The response is satisfying in the sense that it allows for “deviations” in the gospels without invalidating them; but the response then implies that the first post of this thread posits an invalid test for “truth”.
You’d have to allow that a truth can be communicated in many different ways; even in some contradictory ways and still the truth (or most of it) remains.[/quote]
pukie, as God is infallible, so is His Church. There is only one path to heaven, and that path is expressed in the Orthodox Christian Church. You can communicate the Truth of God in many different ways (ie. upside down, over the phone, in Chinese, standing up, in the park, holding a beer, blind folded, etc) but the same message and path must be expressed.
You claim that the expression is guaranteed to dwindle after a few generations because of human error. Nice philosophy, but no… The Orthodox Church has literally thousands of priests that guard the transmission of Truth as it’s passed on from one generation to the next. For the Truth to err, as you imply happened to the Orthodox Christian Church, hundreds of priests must also be united in embracing a lie at one point in time or through a gradual transformation.
It’s so funny how mertdawg is on the other side of the country yet he and I agree on exactly the same doctrines and dogmas. This may shock you, but the Orthodox Christian Eskimos in Alaska believe in exactly the same Faith as the Orthodox Christians in Africa and all over the rest of our planet. If there was ever a deterioration of the Truth, then this should not be the case. Especially after the last 700 years.
In your haste, you also neglect to realize that Orthodox Christians are able to actually prove what’s currently being practiced & taught in their local church with the Orthodox Church of an earlier era or place through the reading of manuscripts, epistles, councils, and orally transmitted evidence.
Think before you post, lest you prove yourself a moron.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
stellar: Technically, he’s not being a hypocrite, because he’s not arguing from a position of dogma like y’all religious folks.
Being empty of faith prevents you from making points based on faith.
What he’s doing is contradicting and ridiculing y’all. That’s just rude (and funny), and not hypocritical. :)[/quote]
Um… Good try but no. Pukie’s lack of faith is a religion in it of itself. He has his own dogmas and whether he expresses them or not is beside the point. Simply challenging ours and then turning around to mock the fact we challenge eachother is hypocritical indeed. How sweet of you to come to his rescue.
You and pukie should get together holding hands while gazing into eachother’s eyes while strolling through the park and then following that up with a romantic movie.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Matthew9v9 wrote:
Point taken. In NY people that describe themselves as such are called “non-denominationalists”. This is a 20th century phenomenon, never before witnessed in the world. They ascribe to the idea of an invisible Church of Christ instead of the very visible Orthodox Christian Church. They have no issues with floating about in different Protestant churches that may preach two or more conflicting beliefs,
[/quote]
I do not “float” from church to church. I have been with my home church for 7 years since moving to this town.
[quote]and it makes no difference where they worship and/or what one church witnesses in direct contradiction to their other.
[/quote]
Not a description of me either.
No, I rejected the term “fundamentalist” because it is VERY OFTEN ascribed to independent Baptists in my area that have no higher accountability than the local church.
You follow someone else’s interpretation already. Said so yourself.
I am fallible. If I am in error and you are not, please pray for me and, I believe the Lord will have mercy on me and direct me to your denomination.
SH, while I respect what you are doing here and your scholarship, with each post, I must be honest and say that salutation sounds more and more empty. I sincerely hope you do wish Peace to me and that I am mistaken in that.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Um… Good try but no. Pukie’s lack of faith is a religion in it of itself.[/quote]
Oxford dictionary definition: 1) the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2) the expression of this in worship. 3) a particular system of faith and worship.
No. Atheism is not a religion. It could be argued that it’s a type of belief system, that’s how I look at it, but it’s not a religion because there is no worshipping or belief in supernatural stuff going on. That means no dogma, too. Because folks like me don’t have a prescribed set of rules to live by and judge others by. Think of it as this: I’m allowed to make up my own mind about things, and as long as you hold onto your orthodoxy about some things, you are not.
[quote]You and pukie should get together holding hands while gazing into eachother’s eyes while strolling through the park and then following that up with a romantic movie.
How’s that for funny…
[/quote]
It’s a start. You have delivery, but the timing’s not quite right yet. Keep at it!
P.S. Homoeroticism needs a proper, or rather, improper context to have good comedic effect. A good time to use the above passage you wrote would be in a thread that you started with the title “I wish someone would just grab a fistful of my hair and pound my ass with wild abandon. No lube please.”
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips: again, I’ll get back to the other questions you posed in time. Thanks. I did have a couple of questions that came up, and a response to one.
Question: Why the the authors of the Gospels apparently edit and re-edit them-especially John, several times, in some cases over decades?[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re referring to here. John wrote his gospel approx. 2 years before he died.
[quote]
Question: Do you not need to interpret John’s meaning to understand why the days of the week for the last supper and crucifixion are different than the synoptics-that he meant to parallel Jesus death with the slaying of the Passover lambs?[/quote]
It’s easy to see why there is confusion surrounding his wording. On Preparation the people prepared meals for the next day, the Sabbath, and completed any other pressing work that could not wait until after the Sabbath. Regarding the morning of Jesus’ trial and appearance before Pilate, which was in the morning period of Nisan 14 (the Passover day having begun the evening before), John 19:14 says: “Now it was preparation of the passover.” (NW, KJ, Da) Some commentators have understood this to mean “preparation for the passover,” and certain translations so render the verse. (AT, We, CC) This, though, suggests that the Passover had not yet been celebrated, whereas the Gospel accounts explicitly show that Jesus and the apostles had celebrated it the night before. (Lu 22:15; Mt 26:18-20; Mr 14:14-17) Christ perfectly carried out the regulations of the Law, including the requirement to celebrate the Passover on Nisan 14. (Ex 12:6; Le 23:5) The day of Jesus’ trial and death could be viewed as the “preparation of the passover” in the sense that it was the preparation for the seven-day Festival of Unfermented Cakes that began the next day. Because of their closeness on the calendar, the entire festival itself was often included in the term “Passover.” And the day after Nisan 14 was always a Sabbath.
[quote]
Question: Which books, such as the apocrypha from the Orthodox bible as well as others should be excluded and why?[/quote]
You ask a question and it takes a long time to answer it well. I hope you appreciate the amount of time I am willing to dedicate to giving you a thorough answer. Thank goodness you have enough where-with-all to see the relevance that another poster has trouble distinguishing.
Anyway…Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. Many church ‘fathers’ put these books in a secondary position in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures. Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books. This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.” The best evidence, however, against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself being so contradictory, rife with error and dishonesty.
The later writings manifest an attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus’ life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it. Thus the so-called Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are filled with fanciful accounts of miracles supposedly wrought by Jesus in his childhood. But the whole effect of the picture they draw of him is to cause Jesus to appear as a capricious and petulant child endowed with impressive powers. (Compare the genuine account at Lu 2:51,52.) The Apocryphal “Acts,” such as the “Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” lay heavy stress on complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands, thus contradicting Paul’s authentic counsel at 1 Corinthians 7.
Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: “Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.” Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p.56) comments: “They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.”
[quote]
Questions: Do you believe in baptism, should we confess our sins, should we have a practice to commemorate the last supper to “do this in rememberence?” and finally, how do you/should one worship?[/quote]
Yes a complete immersion is necessary. Without getting too detailed sins must be confessed to God and to appointed men there to help ‘readjust’ the sinner. However this in no way resembles the Catholic ‘confession’ which makes a mockery of the process. The ‘last supper’(I’ve only used that term before because I assumed all would recognize it) was instituted as a replacement for the Passover. The Passover was commemorated once a year and so it was evident the ‘last supper’ would now take it’s place. The most important thing about worship is at John 4:24 ‘God is a spirit and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.’ Idols, icons, vestments, pagan traditions etc. were not for Christians. There could be so much more to say but I’m not going into it.
Are you saying Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophecies? John is not making it up to fulfill prophecy otherwise his own faith would be founded on deception and in order to hide his ‘liberties’ he would surely have tried to raise as little suspicion as possible rather than include apparent differences.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
And what’s Jesus doing saying ‘My God’? Jesus has a God? Yes he does. Another Trinity destroyer.
It was never taught that way in the beginning. [/quote]Why don’t you provide your supposed alternative instead of thinking bold print somehow does the job for you?[quote]
Good job using 21st century Bible interpretation to establish a heretical conclusion.
This is precisely the problem with Protestants/Jehovah’s Witnesses/Mormons and every other heretical group under the sun. They take Orthodox Christian writings and interpret them in heterodox ways. Oh the evils of men who rationalize away God’s Divine truths with their feeble minds.
It was emphasized long ago (and even before the Bible was written) that heretics will by no means enter the kingdom of God. You may all accept foreign doctrines and interpret the Bible by enemies of Truth, but I’ll stick with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ established in 33 AD. [/quote]
Let’s not forget, God directed the writing of the bible. It was HE who would make sure nothing important was left out.
That quickly brings an end to this discussion. It’s hard to argue with,“It’s messed up only because God wants it that way.”
Why do you study the bible? My guess is academically/interest oriented. Good questions!
Used to be a Christian. Then I had those questions that can’t be answered. Then I read THE AGE OF REASON.
[/quote]
Sadly your response shows you weren’t really interested in a response as I believed. To jump from a legitimate question which I showed why you had not raised any contradictions, somehow we arrive at the bible is ‘messed up’ now. You’ve hardly shown anything to be messed up. Instead you’ve been helped to not expect the gospels to simply parrot each other.
Virtually every important question can be answered.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Virtually every important question can be answered. [/quote]
I could go a step farther, and make a good argument that you can leave out the “virtually” in your statement above. In fact, I could say that if you are a devout christian, you have very little doubt left to you about much of anything.
In other words, I would be very hard-pressed to find a question that could not be answered quite readily by someone with advanced knowledge of the scripture.
The only snag I can see for you guys is if the bible is wrong. But I guess that’s not so bad either. Good for you guys.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Sadly your response shows you weren’t really interested in a response as I believed. To jump from a legitimate question which I showed why you had not raised any contradictions, somehow we arrive at the bible is ‘messed up’ now. You’ve hardly shown anything to be messed up. Instead you’ve been helped to not expect the gospels to simply parrot each other.
Virtually every important question can be answered. [/quote]
I was interested in a response. You ended up saying the accounts of Jesus’s last words don’t match because God didn’t want them to. If you really believe that, how can the discussion continue other than with me going, “No he did not” and you going “Yes he did”?
I think it is a silly arguement, but I don’t think I’d ever change your mind. You certainly didn’t give a satisfactory answer. You didn’t say messed up, but you said the accounts don’t match because wanted it that way. Fine.
All in all, I think your approach to this thread makes a lot more sense than the Orthodox people’s. I can’t find in the Bible where Jesus says he is God. I certainly don’t believe bread and wine turn to flesh and blood.
In the end I think there is probably a god. A god who is good and not vain. A god who has given us free will and minds to seek fact (not superstition). I think the God in the bible is weak, vain, and cruel, and not worthy of worship.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pukie, as God is infallible, so is His Church. There is only one path to heaven, and that path is expressed in the Orthodox Christian Church.[/quote]
A good friend of mine, who is muslim, also claims that God is infallible (although he calls him “Allah”) and claims the the only true path to salvation is expressed in the Quoran.
You’ll claim he’s following a false God, that he’s deceived and that unless he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he simply cannot be “saved”.
That’s all good and well, but since you’re an Orthodox Christian because your parents where Orthodox Christians and raised you in that faith and he’s muslim because, and this might come as a surprise, he was born in a muslim family, who is right?
He’s no less convinced of being absolutely and without a doubt RIGHT about his convictions; the same as you.
And the world over, billions of people of thousands of different faith (99.99% of them of the faith their parents held, I’d bet) are devout and completely convinced of the “rightness” of their beliefs.
It seems to me that a perfect, infallible God would find a better way to inspire man than to allow such a proliferation of religions. If there really was “One Truth”, wouldn’t that truth be so compelling that men would find themselves unable to resist it?
As it is, you need churches and clergy and a whole bureaucratic apparatus just to try and preserve whatever version of God you imagine is the right one; as do all other religions.
How can your infallible God fail so miserably at the simple task of SHOWING ALL MEN which fucking church IS THE RIGHT ONE?!
If only you could apply that simple recommendation to your own beliefs…
[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Sadly your response shows you weren’t really interested in a response as I believed. To jump from a legitimate question which I showed why you had not raised any contradictions, somehow we arrive at the bible is ‘messed up’ now. You’ve hardly shown anything to be messed up. Instead you’ve been helped to not expect the gospels to simply parrot each other.
Virtually every important question can be answered.
I was interested in a response. You ended up saying the accounts of Jesus’s last words don’t match because God didn’t want them to. If you really believe that, how can the discussion continue other than with me going, “No he did not” and you going “Yes he did”?[/quote]
Allow me to clarify. They don’t match because they were not intended to. Perhaps we may not know for a certainty every nuance of why one writer chose to highlight a certain portion and another chose a different angle or portion. We do know God allowed a certain freedom of expression to them but inspired them in the sense everything necessary was recorded along with no contradictions or fallacies. We know this because their personalities are revealed in their writings. They were not taken over like robots in the 'borg.
As well, we must remember the gospels were not mere memoirs for posterity. They were written to different audiences. I’m not at home currently so I can’t include the exact scriptures from memory but I believe John explained a lot of Jewish cultural aspects in his gospel because his gospel was not primarily addressed to Jews, so his readers had to be acquainted with details Jews would have been familiar with. Whereas the other gospels don’t go into these details. Another reason not to expect them to be the same.
A good example for apparent contradictions is 2 people witnessing an accident. One says a car came from the left, another says the same one came from the right. Turns out they were just standing on opposite sides of the street. Instead of declaring they’re contradicting each other, a reasonable person tries to find out why they’re saying different things and discovers the reason they differ and concludes that they are actually in agreement.
[quote]
I think it is a silly arguement, but I don’t think I’d ever change your mind. You certainly didn’t give a satisfactory answer. You didn’t say messed up, but you said the accounts don’t match because wanted it that way. Fine.
All in all, I think your approach to this thread makes a lot more sense than the Orthodox people’s. I can’t find in the Bible where Jesus says he is God. I certainly don’t believe bread and wine turn to flesh and blood.
In the end I think there is probably a god. A god who is good and not vain. A god who has given us free will and minds to seek fact (not superstition). I think the God in the bible is weak, vain, and cruel, and not worthy of worship.[/quote]
I think you were unfortunately associated with a religion that was unable to answer your questions properly, as almost all can’t, and your COMMON SENSE was offended as it should be by the complete falsehoods they teach.
Please read my response I am going to make to pookie. He brings up all the goods. This thread has finally gotten to the brass tacks.
[quote]pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
pukie, as God is infallible, so is His Church. There is only one path to heaven, and that path is expressed in the Orthodox Christian Church.
A good friend of mine, who is muslim, also claims that God is infallible (although he calls him “Allah”) and claims the the only true path to salvation is expressed in the Quoran.
You’ll claim he’s following a false God, that he’s deceived and that unless he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he simply cannot be “saved”.
That’s all good and well, but since you’re an Orthodox Christian because your parents where Orthodox Christians and raised you in that faith and he’s muslim because, and this might come as a surprise, he was born in a muslim family, who is right?[/quote]
Exactly. Being born into a religion doesn’t make it right. Nor does a complete conviction in it’s rightness as it’s possible to be sincerely wrong.
The bible gives an explanation that hits all the right cords regarding the reason we have all these religions. Whose purpose do you think it serves to have a million choices out there regarding worship and religion, God’s or Satan’s? No better way to obscure the truth than to throw out a whole pile of options. Instead the bible shows that the ancient city of Babel(Babylon)was a centre of religious ideas/philosophies in opposition to God. There, you may recall, God confused their languages and the inhabitants left the city spreading out from there - taking their religious ideas and customs with them. In their new locations their ‘religions’ evolved. But they all came from a central source. Why do you think, as has been brought up earlier on this thread, that so many religions seem to have a number of basic ideas that are pretty much the same? A trinity god, an immortal soul, a place of eternal punishment etc. All untrue ideas taking centre stage in most religions, not just corrupted ‘Christian’ ones - and all with a pagan source opposed to God.
Does that even resemble the simple form of worship Jesus was trying to teach people? A lot of meaningless tradition and pomp. Many of the original Christians who had converted from Judaism had to be counselled about the necessity to leave completely behind the Jewish form of worship with all its grandeur because they really liked the ornateness(even a word?) of the Jewish way rather than the simple and humble worship of the Christians.
And finally…the compelling effect of truth. Think about the reality of the world. How often is the truth really embraced by the masses? Truth most often meets with ridicule and, many times, violent opposition. It’s true of almost any area of life. Think about what most people believe about nutrition and training. Does it appear the masses have it right? No, they’d rather listen to someone who tells them what they want to hear rather than the truth. BUT, to those genuinely humble, honest, and hungry to know the truth, to them it is truly compelling when they find it/hear it and it changes their lives giving them the answers they’ve so longed for and that makes everything make sense.
[quote]
How can your infallible God fail so miserably at the simple task of SHOWING ALL MEN which fucking church IS THE RIGHT ONE?!
Think before you post, lest you prove yourself a moron.
If only you could apply that simple recommendation to your own beliefs…[/quote]
It’s great to have you and doogie on this thread. Funny that your names would be so close.
