Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

Then they are not Christians. I don't know what comes from the Bible that states Jesus didn't die and rise again for our sins. You'll have to point that out for me.

That does not matter, What matters is that there are Christians that interpret the bible differently so how do we know who is right, if anyone. For example the Red Letter Christian types generally do not believe that Jesus was sacrificed for sins. You can call them not real Christians all day but until you can substantiate your claims it is just bluster.

 

[Silmarien]

Really? I doubt that. It may be testing your personal God, and many Christians assume that the God that they believe in is the only one even when it refutes itself. You might want to check the context of their claims about "testing God".

And no one is saying that God needs to meet their subjective demands. They are most likely simply pointing out the errors in various different versions of God. Christians can get a bit ticked off when it is pointed out that they have different versions of God than other Christians. But the fact is if there was only one version of God there would not be thousands of sects of Christianity.

There aren't really thousands of different sects of Christianity. There are maybe five or six sects, which all agree on far more than they disagree, and then a billion different non-denominational churches, sometimes with conflicting ideas about salvation but fairly similar in most ways, and people keep on pointing them out to say that there are thousands of different sects.

I'd say that there are at most two different versions of God, since I think it might be possible to such extremes with the notion of sovereignty that you end up with a different moral character, but other than that, I just don't see it.

(I guess you could also say that classical theists and neo-personalists have different versions of God, but I don't think the difference is meaningful in practice.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

The written WORD of GOD does not contradict the VOICE/SPIRIT of GOD...and the VOICE/SPIRIT of GOD does not contradict the written WORD of GOD

I don't know what any of that has to do with what I wrote.

Back to the subject. How can a person be truth?

 

[miknik5]

I don't know what any of that has to do with what I wrote.

Back to the subject. How can a person be truth?

It certainly does...you are waiting for a VOICE/SPIRIT to confirm the written WORD...
When I said you ¨heard¨"HIM...I was referring to either...the written WORD and/or HIS VOICE/SPIRIT...

And I said the written WORD will not contradict HIS VOICE/SPIRIT and HIS VOICE/SPIRIT will not contradict HIS written word...

So, Unless, of course, you will tell me that you have never read the written WORD...I said you heard HIM

If you tell me you have never read the WORD of GOD, then I will say, I am sorry for telling you that you had already heard HIM...

But again, if you have read the WORD of GOD, then you heard THE TRUTH, but you just didn´t believe because you are waiting for an experience that will validate your faith...

Which sir, is an immature and backward approach to faith...

 

[miknik5]

ONE FOUNDATION in response to the many supposed ¨truths¨ and ¨versions¨ of GOD...

ONE FOUNDATION...not many....

 

[Tinker Grey]

It certainly does...you are waiting for a VOICE/SPIRIT to confirm the written WORD...
When I said you ¨heard¨"HIM...I was referring to either...the written WORD and/or HIS VOICE/SPIRIT...

And I said the written WORD will not contradict HIS VOICE/SPIRIT and HIS VOICE/SPIRIT will not contradict HIS written word...

So, Unless, of course, you will tell me that you have never read the written WORD...I said you heard HIM

If you tell me you have never read the WORD of GOD, then I will say, I am sorry for telling you that you had already heard HIM...

But again, if you have read the WORD of GOD, then you heard THE TRUTH, but you just didn´t believe because you are waiting for an experience that will validate your faith...

Which sir, is an immature and backward approach to faith...

How can a person be the truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is NOT what I am doing...

In the real world, people do not have the right to keep insisting that someone is doing something that they have already said, more than once, that they are NOT doing...

(this time NOT was capped for...emphasis)

You can deny it all that you want. It won't do any good. I have heard many police videos where people are actively resisting arrest and at the same time denying that act. One judges by actions more than claims that are refuted by those actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person cannot be the TRUTH, TRUTh, TRUtH, TRUth, TRuTH, TRuTh, TRutH, TRuth, TrUTH, TrUTh, TrUtH, TrUth, TruTH, TruTh, TrutH, Truth, tRUTH, tRUTh, tRUtH, tRUth, tRuTH, tRuTh, tRutH, tRuth, trUTH, trUTh, trUtH, trUth, truTH, truTh, trutH, or truth.

But one can be Ruth

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How can a person be the truth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That does not matter, What matters is that there are Christians that interpret the bible differently so how do we know who is right, if anyone. For example the Red Letter Christian types generally do not believe that Jesus was sacrificed for sins. You can call them not real Christians all day but until you can substantiate your claims it is just bluster.

What? I don't even know what you mean by Red Letter Christian types. However, if you don't believe that Jesus died for our sins, you are not a Christian. Period. There is only one way to heaven, Jesus who died on the cross, rose again and paid for the sins of mankind. It isn't bluster, it is simply the foundation of Christianity.

By the way, it does matter. Where in the Bible does it claim that Jesus did not die on the cross to redeem mankind of their sins and rise again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There aren't really thousands of different sects of Christianity. There are maybe five or six sects, which all agree on far more than they disagree, and then a billion different non-denominational churches, sometimes with conflicting ideas about salvation but fairly similar in most ways, and people keep on pointing them out to say that there are thousands of different sects.

I'd say that there are at most two different versions of God, since I think it might be possible to such extremes with the notion of sovereignty that you end up with a different moral character, but other than that, I just don't see it.

(I guess you could also say that classical theists and neo-personalists have different versions of God, but I don't think the difference is meaningful in practice.)

No, you are conflating branches with denominations or sects:

Christian Denominations


I have seen counts of 33,000 or even higher, but some of those automatically call different groups different sects just because they are in different countries. I would say that is inflated a bit. What is seen is that the differences between individual sects may be very small but they add up. One could almost certainly find various sects that span the differences between major branches. So if one looks at any two sects there may be quite a few similarities, one could find an almost Pentacostal Southern Baptist sect and keep jumping in small changes until one found he was in a Catholic church

But the fact is that there are major differences between some of the sects. Even in denominations you will find sects that are literalistic when it comes to Genesis and those that are not.

But we are off my point a bit. Testing one's ideas is not testing God. If two closely related sects have different beliefs would it not be wise to test those different beliefs to see if one is self contradicting or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? I don't even know what you mean by Red Letter Christian types. However, if you don't believe that Jesus died for our sins, you are not a Christian. Period. There is only one way to heaven, Jesus who died on the cross, rose again and paid for the sins of mankind. It isn't bluster, it is simply the foundation of Christianity.

By the way, it does matter. Where in the Bible does it claim that Jesus did not die on the cross to redeem mankind of their sins and rise again?

I do believe that a Red Letter Christian is one that puts special stock in Red Letter Bibles. Those are Bibles where quotes of Jesus are printed in red.

Red letter edition - Wikipedia

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What? I don't even know what you mean by Red Letter Christian types. However, if you don't believe that Jesus died for our sins, you are not a Christian. Period. There is only one way to heaven, Jesus who died on the cross, rose again and paid for the sins of mankind. It isn't bluster, it is simply the foundation of Christianity.

Says you. Other Christians have different takes on it. Look up red letter Christians and you will see they are Christians with different views about doctrine. Just show me that your interpretation is correct and that will be the end of it, until then, how do I know they are incorrect or you are correct?

By the way, it does matter. Where in the Bible does it claim that Jesus did not die on the cross to redeem mankind of their sins and rise again?

I never said it does. Take that up with people that believe he didn't and still call themselves Christians. Just demonstrate that your beliefs are true and this can all be cleared up pronto.

 

[Silmarien]

No, you are conflating branches with denominations or sects:

Christian Denominations


I have seen counts of 33,000 or even higher, but some of those automatically call different groups different sects just because they are in different countries. I would say that is inflated a bit. What is seen is that the differences between individual sects may be very small but they add up. One could almost certainly find various sects that span the differences between major branches. So if one looks at any two sects there may be quite a few similarities, one could find an almost Pentacostal Southern Baptist sect and keep jumping in small changes until one found he was in a Catholic church

But the fact is that there are major differences between some of the sects. Even in denominations you will find sects that are literalistic when it comes to Genesis and those that are not.

But we are off my point a bit. Testing one's ideas is not testing God. If two closely related sects have different beliefs would it not be wise to test those different beliefs to see if one is self contradicting or not?

It's not just inflated a bit. It makes no sense whatsoever. You just can't call Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy different sects with different versions of God. I don't see how even literalists and allegorists would be different religions with different versions of God. Theological differences don't automatically mean people have different Gods.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I do believe that a Red Letter Christian is one that puts special stock in Red Letter Bibles. Those are Bibles where quotes of Jesus are printed in red.

Red letter edition - Wikipedia

To contradict @Clizby WampusCat a bit, I've always associated Red Letter Christians with Evangelicalism.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

To contradict @Clizby WampusCat a bit, I've always associated Red Letter Christians with Evangelicalism.

I agree. They are liberal minded as well. But they still call themselves Christians and promote the teachings of Jesus (at least the ones they agree with). I guess my point is that who has the authority to call someone a christian or not?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I guess my point is that who has the authority to call someone a christian or not

Of course. One of the frustrating things about these debates is that I can aver that Christians believe X and be correct to a 99% degree and my interlocutor's response will be "well, I don't believe that." At that point, I can only let the religious argue among themselves.

 

[miknik5]

You can deny it all that you want. It won't do any good. I have heard many police videos where people are actively resisting arrest and at the same time denying that act. One judges by actions more than claims that are refuted by those actions.

I can´t speak for anyone else but myself...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, you are conflating branches with denominations or sects:

Christian Denominations


I have seen counts of 33,000 or even higher, but some of those automatically call different groups different sects just because they are in different countries. I would say that is inflated a bit. What is seen is that the differences between individual sects may be very small but they add up. One could almost certainly find various sects that span the differences between major branches. So if one looks at any two sects there may be quite a few similarities, one could find an almost Pentacostal Southern Baptist sect and keep jumping in small changes until one found he was in a Catholic church

But the fact is that there are major differences between some of the sects. Even in denominations you will find sects that are literalistic when it comes to Genesis and those that are not.

But we are off my point a bit. Testing one's ideas is not testing God. If two closely related sects have different beliefs would it not be wise to test those different beliefs to see if one is self contradicting or not?

To some small to moderate extent, you're correct. But then, if we place the locus of the problem within the bounds of the issue of whether or not any one group adheres to the basic Trinitarian conceptions that are historically embedded in the last 2,000 years of Christian history, well then...............your assertion does an amazing flop after attempting a triple-somersault back-flip, landing squarely upon its keister.

This is all the more reason WHY I hold to an ever ongoing ecumenical stance among ALL TRADITIONALLY ORIENTED TRINITARIAN Christians. And I dare anyone to attempt to dismantle my whole stance. Good luck to 'ya, you're going to need a heck of a lot of it, tooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not just inflated a bit. It makes no sense whatsoever. You just can't call Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy different sects with different versions of God. I don't see how even literalists and allegorists would be different religions with have different versions of God. Theological differences don't automatically mean people have different Gods.

I totally agree.