Ask God for Me

[Subduction Zone]

Religion had no part in WW1 or WW2. Religion was not a player in the Vietnam war or in Iraq.

The Korean war was definitely without any religion. The French and Russian revolutions, no religion either.

The Roman Empire lacked religion to some extent. The same goes for Alexander the Great. Egypt had religion but I don't think they ruled in the name of their God.

The crusades were definitely religious.

My beloved inquisitions were the greatest religious conquests.

Not many armed conflicts were purely based on religion, though there were a few. Most conflict was territorial expansion methinks.

So what? Watch the Black and White fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shame about that. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what the gospel comprises. Without that belief, then these so called Christians are lost.

How would you prove that? You appear to be assuming that your personal interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

But even more obvious, you missed the point of that post.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, which is why we have said that all Christians believe that God came down in the flesh as Jesus, that he died and rose again.

But what about all those claims that are the subject of disagreement? How can they be objectively true?

 

[klutedavid]

My previous post has an example.

The Northern Island conflict was nationalistic. The Irish hated the English and they had good reason to hate the English.

Ireland was a divided state, two nationalities, one in the north and one in the south of Ireland.

The conflict was over English settlement and English dominance of Ireland.

 

[klutedavid]

But what about all those claims that are the subject of disagreement? How can they be objectively true?

What claims?

 

[klutedavid]

If something is objectively true, then there is only one possible answer and all people who have that correct answer will be in complete agreement with each other.

Not so. The earth is spherical and that is objectively true. Does everyone agree? Certainly not. We have a flat earth society.

 

[klutedavid]

How would you prove that? You appear to be assuming that your personal interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

An interpretation, certainly not. I read the New Testament as it was written and never interpret the text.

Paul states the Christian gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.

No Christian can debate that gospel declaration by Paul.

But even more obvious, you missed the point of that post.

How about saving me the torture of reading so many misinformed posts, trying to find your earlier post that I missed.

 

[coffee4u]

Are you sure? In England alone about one quarter of the Christians there do not believe in the resurrection:

A quarter of Christians do not believe in the resurrection

Then they are not Christians.

I think one thing a lot of people don't understand about Christianity is that a lot of people label themselves as being Christian without actually being Christian. I think people do this with being Jewish too.

Some reasons I have seen are:
1) They are not pagans.
Some people think anyone who isn't actively anti-religion/of another religion such as Hindusim and says they believe in God, label themselves as Christian on forms asking for their religion. This is often the only time they even give it a passing thought.

2) It's the family religion/tradition.
In this case, their parents are Christian or label themselves as Christian (since this can be multi generational) They probably got christened as infants, they may have gone to Sunday School or gone to church as children. They grow up thinking this makes them a Christian.
The Uk, in particular, has this kind of thinking so that article does not surprise me. They are mostly either Catholic or Anglican. If asked they will say they are X but they 'don't actively practice' or they are 'active' which means they go to church because that is what you do. They have then done their weekly 'duty'.
My own family was a bit like this. We were 'Anglican' like a badge you pass down.
I think there is a lot less of this form of 'Christianity' now because young people are less inclined to follow family tradition. When I was a child the kids who were non-religious at school had to stay out in the hall during RE and they were seen as being rather odd and something to be whispered about.

3) It's their own form.
This is where people have some form of religion and they add what they like and toss the rest. Maybe it's based around a church that they like the worship or teachings at. Oftentimes it can be a mish-mash of Christianity and any other religion/s you can name.
Jesus is often seen as a great teacher, but just one of many.

 

[coffee4u]

But what about all those claims that are the subject of disagreement? How can they be objectively true?

I already said some issues do have a right and a wrong although most issues are less simple. Baptism is one that has multiple views.
All Christians believe in baptism but the how and why varies between denominations.

Is being sprinkled with water on the head as an infant baptism? People disagree.
Should it be done in a creek like Jesus did or is it okay in a special tub inside of a church building? People disagree.
Should baptism happen immediately upon salvation or should lengthy classes be held on it first? People disagree.
Why? Because we are human. Doesn't change that God wants believers to be baptised but different denominations go about it in different ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An interpretation, certainly not. I read the New Testament as it was written and never interpret the text.

Paul states the Christian gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.

No Christian can debate that gospel declaration by Paul.

How about saving me the torture of reading so many misinformed posts, trying to find your earlier post that I missed.

Everybody interprets the text for themselves. That is why there are thousands of sects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then they are not Christians.

I think one thing a lot of people don't understand about Christianity is that a lot of people label themselves as being Christian without actually being Christian. I think people do this with being Jewish too.

Some reasons I have seen are:
1) They are not pagans.
Some people think anyone who isn't actively anti-religion/of another religion such as Hindusim and says they believe in God, label themselves as Christian on forms asking for their religion. This is often the only time they even give it a passing thought.

2) It's the family religion/tradition.
In this case, their parents are Christian or label themselves as Christian (since this can be multi generational) They probably got christened as infants, they may have gone to Sunday School or gone to church as children. They grow up thinking this makes them a Christian.
The Uk, in particular, has this kind of thinking so that article does not surprise me. They are mostly either Catholic or Anglican. If asked they will say they are X but they 'don't actively practice' or they are 'active' which means they go to church because that is what you do. They have then done their weekly 'duty'.
My own family was a bit like this. We were 'Anglican' like a badge you pass down.
I think there is a lot less of this form of 'Christianity' now because young people are less inclined to follow family tradition. When I was a child the kids who were non-religious at school had to stay out in the hall during RE and they were seen as being rather odd and something to be whispered about.

3) It's their own form.
This is where people have some form of religion and they add what they like and toss the rest. Maybe it's based around a church that they like the worship or teachings at. Oftentimes it can be a mish-mash of Christianity and any other religion/s you can name.
Jesus is often seen as a great teacher, but just one of many.

Those are claims that you would need to support. Your say so is not enough. And it was only one example. Do you need more?

 

[Silmarien]

What made you think that was my claim?

You seemed to suggest that any actual knowledge about the history of Europe and its relationship to Christianity is apologetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not so. The earth is spherical and that is objectively true. Does everyone agree? Certainly not. We have a flat earth society.

And how do we test those beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seemed to suggest that any actual knowledge about the history of Europe and its relationship to Christianity is apologetics.

Nope, where did you get that crazy idea from? Ignoring or trying to dishonestly defend the role of different sects of Christianity and other religions in wars is apologetics.

 

[miknik5]

Because the foundation is the same in both cases. In your case, it's "Jesus is real." In my case, it's "Kylie went to the shops.

The foundation is that they are all shops I can go to.



But if one person says I went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, but the other person says I went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, we have a problem.

They are saying different things. It's like I said, "If Miknik asks, tell her I went to the shops, but really I'm sneaking out to go to a party and I don't want her to know."

When people say different things, then it casts doubt on their truthfulness.

I can´t follow the connection, Kylie...sorry...

Iḿ really trying to...but it is a distortion of the TRUTH which I have stated too many times to keep track of: there is only ONE FOUNDATION on which the church should be built...and regardless of how many outward churches there are, the FOUNDATION had better be the same.

Your example has one running to different shops and it is clearly evident that they aren´t the same...

And you can´t have the ONE who is THE FOUNDATION running around to different ¨foundations¨ when HE HIMSELF is THE FOUNDATION...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Everybody interprets the text for themselves. That is why there are thousands of sects.

You haven't shown there are thousands of sects.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I would hope one of you was right, even if we couldn't see for ourselves. Not both of you are right.

This is my point, there is no way to know without further evidence.

That is why the Bible is important.

The Bible where Christians do not agree on what it says?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Show me in the first three hundred years that the Church didn't believe Jesus died for our sins and arose again.

The Christians Gnostic's for example. But this does not matter because if you want to go down the road that if the early Christians believed something that is what the doctrine is then you must throw out the doctrine of the trinity for example. A doctrine that when it was formally introduced in the 3rd century and was opposed by most Christians at the time.

But you are diverting my point. The early Christians did not have a bible as you have today, so saying you must adhere to its teachings to be a christian will then lead to having to say the early Christians were not real Christians.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What? They say they are.

What you have found is the Christ United Methodist Church not the United Methodist Church. Seems that even Christians get confused because there are so many denominations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is my point, there is no way to know without further evidence.

The Bible where Christians do not agree on what it says?

Look Clizby, you don't have to worry about what one Christian says vs. what another Christian says. You have to worry that you are not making a mistake by not accepting Jesus to cover your sins. That is the bottom line, and it matters to you personally not to me not to Tinker, not anyone but you. You are the one that needs the truth and finding it makes all the difference.