Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Try again, no one is Marxist here. If you cannot debate properly there there is no point in having a discussion I could just as well claim that all Christians are "fascists". I know that is not true, but it is as true as your Marxist nonsense.
Nothing you say here suggests you are able to think for yourself. Did you never have doubts and ask questions like we atheists do? As you can see there are no theists who can offer any evidence for what they believe in a way that can convince skilled thinkers. Notice you mention two difference sects of Christianity with different rituals and interpretations of the Bible, what does that disagreement tell you?
According to the scriptures God is our judge and you and have no say in who is a Christian and who is not (see Romans 2:1-8; Matthew 7:1-5). Sharing scripture with you proving what you say is not truthful is not making false accusations. According to John 17:17 the scriptures are the very definition of what truth is so sharing scripture with you is actually telling you the truth. The problem is though is that you do not believe in God or His Words so you are unable to see this because of your unbelief which the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23
You are not telling the truth. My response was provided in the last post you are quoting from and simply ignored. Here let me post it again for you here so you can address it. I posted you have a problem with the scripture you provided and said to you. Lets discuss these scripture now that you linked and see if they say what you claim they are saying. You provided a link to Romans 3. I then asked you and said "Please now show us where does it say in Romans 3 that "whatsoever is not of faith is not sin" in disagreement with Romans 14:23 that says "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"? There is nothing in Romans 3 anywhere that says that unbelief is not sin. Lets be honest you have nothing do you which is why I asked you for the link. None of the scriptures you have provided support anything that you have said in our discussion now do they. Please be honest dear friend. You have nothing, then pretend I did not respond to what you said which is a lie your side. Evidence of this fact can be seen in post # 119 linked, that you simply ignored. Sorry I am not leaving you with any wiggle room.
Please forgive me dear friend but I do not believe you and your comment here has no truth in it. Evidence evidence to this fact is all the scriptures that have been provided that are in disagreement with you is there for all to see in post # 31 linked; post # 32 linked; post # 54 linked; post # 58 linked; post # 79 linked; post # 82 linked; post # 84 linked; post # 101 linked; post # 114 linked; post # 116 linked; post # 119 linked. Sadly you refuse to address the post contents, the questions and the scriptures that are in disagreement with you. Sorry I am not leaving you any wiggle room. This must be embarrassing for you so lets just agree to disagree. Lets talk more when you are willing to enter into a friendly discussion instead of running away from one and throwing out false accusations you are unable to prove when challenged.
It tells me that they are both "deceived" by the church of Rome, which received its authority and dogmas from the state of Rome in the 4th century, which received its authority from "Satan", the "dragon" of Revelation 13, the same god that most "atheist" bend the knee too, via to their false prophet Marx, in their quest of being gods for themselves. I certainly don't need the likes of yourself to think for me. Your fellow Marxist comrades are leading this country into hell as it is. The first thing you "thinkers" should know, is know thyself, and from looking at history and the present, I am thinking, you guys don't even know what a woman is much less, who you are yourselves, or what gender you might be. I am thinking that the confusion is an infusion of the spirit of demons. The Comintern may have planted many seeds in Academia in the early 20th century, but the intensity of craziness, seems more like a shower of newly formed divisions of demons falling from the sky. I mean, it could be a lack of nutrition, poor education, and even pollutants and poisons in the environment, but no, I still think the Sodom and Gomorrah type of environment, kind of leads one to think Pelosi was right, and that she was correct to paying someone to cast the demons out of her California house. If anyone knows about demons, it should be Nancy Pelosi.
I would think that many would figure false interpretations depending on sect or group.
I am honest. godless Marxist are gods in their own eyes, which is true for so called "atheist", who often worship Satan, who would be the god of the godless, whether they admit it or not. They are simply confused by way of their own arrogance, and inflated worth of their worthless educations, but form a religion of atheism for their own security. and to calm down their own frayed nerves, while trying to create their own paradise of godless hedonist. Atheists are Progressive in nature, and as shown by the current administration, fascist in actions. Fascist are best known for burning books, whether that being bibles, and shutting down free speech, whether through intimidations by way of the FBI, or the FBI paying off big Tech to shut down speech not in line with the government narrative. The Atheist cult is wasting their time trying to denigrate the religions, they do a good enough job of that without your help. It only makes you look weak; it is like someone trying to steal candy from babies.
Once again, no one that is debating you is a Marxist. Using that phrase is name calling and is against the rules here. Last chance, can you debate properly or not? By your standards every Christian is a "Fascist". I don't think that but you seem to.
A Marxist gains power by creating division, as between the proletariat and the manager class, as in class warfare. The present Progressive administration gets an A+ for trying to create division, but it has changed the parameters determining the points of division. A "liberal" 10 years ago was not considered a fascist and they were considered free speech advocates. A "liberal" like Jack Kennedy is not the same as a self-proclaim moderate Biden, who is a Progressive, and will probably have to run against an old time "liberal", Kennedy Jr. A "communist" system is simply an aged socialist system, and they are both Marxist in inception. The term "liberal" is not a fixed target, and neither is the term "socialist".
I do not care what the scriptures say. God may be our judge, but I seriously doubt it. You will not fare any better than I will if that is the case. Once again, you cannot even define the "scriptures". You won't because half of your arguments fail if you come up with a proper defintion.
You do not have to believe me. Though an honest person would believe me. You failed. Time after time after time. And now you are admitting that you failed. Linking back to failed arguments yours is just an admission that you are wrong.
I consider the "message" of Paul, the message of lawlessness, the gospel of grace, the message of the "enemy", as the "tare" seed, which was planted alongside the "message" of the "son of man", the wheat seed, in the same "field"/NT (Matthew 13;24-51). The "tares", the product of the tare seeds will be protected alongside of the wheat until the "end of the age", when the "angels" will "gather" the "tares" and throw them into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30).
Do you realize that Paul's works all precede the Gospels? Paul died about the same time as the earliest date of Mark, the first Gospel, was written.
Please forgive me dear friend but I do not believe you. According to the scriptures Romans 14:23 says word for word that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That is what the scripture says. This is in agreement with Hebrews 11:6 that says "without faith it is impossible to please God" and again in the very words of Jesus in John 3:36 that says "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. Sorry I am not leaving you any wiggle room here. There is no salvation in unbelief and sin (see Hebrews 10:26-31). Only the judgements of God are provided to all those who choose to walk down that road. They are a part of the many that are called and not of the few that will be Gods chosen. I asked you also along time ago now if you believe Romans 14:23 does not mean "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" to prove what you say and show why the scriptures do not mean what it says word for word. To this very moment you have ignored this request to you and are unable to prove what you say. I guess it is because you were given no wiggle room. Did you notice once again you did not address any of the post content and the scriptures and the questions asked of you that are in disagreement with you in the post you are quoting from? I will leave you with your unbelief that the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23 and leave it between you and God to work through and once again we will agree to disagree.
Really? So why did God let all that happen? Sounds like a careless God to not safeguard the "truth" you think is valid. You're kind of badmouthing God here. Of course you're not perfect, you're not a God, you could be mistaken, so what does your opinion matter to the forum?
That's a hell of a run on sentence. So Catholicism that lasted exclusively for about 1200 years wasn't valid? And came along Martin Luther (who you totally ignore) who opened the door to tens of thousands of different sects of Chritianity. You're OK with that? And what difference does Marx make after about 2000 years of Christianity that is supposed to be God's word. And what about Muslims?
So you aren't claiming to think for yourself. So whose are you a servant to dogmatically? I'm not sure which tribe you belong to as you are being a little shy about that.
None of us are Marxists. Is there a reason you have to misrepresent us? Can you not defend your beliefs with facts and truth, and instead have to be deceptive? It doesn't work so why not be honest? You may not be able to defedn your beliefs, but you will gain respect. It's your reputation to ruin. And you ruin whatever truth you think you have.
Another irrelevant tangent that masquerades as an attempted insult. Does your character mean nothing to you?
Right wing extremism and conspiracy theory. It's all so ironic.
You only used poor debating technique. Anyone that looks at this can see that you did quote mine Romans 3 4, Just as I quote mined 2 Samuel 7 22. It would have been dishonest of me to present that argument seriously. I presented that you show how incredibly self defeating your own argument is. You a not only regularly claim that God is a liar, you also in effect claim that he does not exist.
Hmm name calling now? I guess that is all you have if you are unable to address the post content, questions and the scriptures that are in disagreement with you. I can see you are upset because you have not been left with any wiggle room. No need to be angry dear friend, receive Gods correction and be blessed. Ignoring the scriptures that are in disagreement with you does not make them disappear. According to Jesus they become our judge come judgement day in John 12:47-48.
Your Paul, was the founder of your Gentile church, whose message is antithetical to the message of the "son of man", is the founder of the church of "tares" (Mt 13:24-30). According to Yeshua, the falling away (Mt 26:31), with regard to Zech 13:7, began when Peter denied him 3 times. The Gentile church, the "flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter", was "pastured" by two "shepherds", the "worthless shepherd" Peter (Zech 11:17), and the shepherd called "Favor" (Zech 11:7-10), with regard to his false gospel of grace, was Paul. The generally accepted canon was not presented until the year 367 A.D. by the infamous bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. And around half of "Paul's works", were probably not written by Paul. As for the long gospel of Luke, according to Luke, he simply wrote down stories taken from unnamed sources. As for Mark, the supposed associate of the Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:16-17, who would not feed, care or tend the sheep, what kind of source is that? I mean, get real. Bundle up your information and take it to the U.S. Supreme court to file your case. You will only get the 3 very liberal judges to side your case. That says something about being liberal and something about your case.
The "God" has turned over the "kingdom to the beast" of Revelation 17:11 "until the words of God should be fulfilled" (Rev 17:17). If you read Mt 13:13-15, Yeshua explained the "kingdom of heaven" via parables, so that those without ears could not understand. If you read Matthew 13:24-30, the "farmer" guarded both the "tares" the result of the tare seeds and the wheat, so that neither will be damaged prior to the "end of the age". We are now at the "end of the age", and the "wheat is ripe", and hardened, and therefore the "angels" can come and gather up the tares and throw them into the "furnace of fire" (Har-Magedon)("day of the LORD"). (Matthew 13:30 & Rev 16:16 & Joel 2:31-32)
Where did I name call? I don't think you used that accusation properly. You lost the debate. Now you are inventing charges out of thin air.
He is not "my Paul", he is Christianity's Paul. What is your personal religion? It does not appear to be Christian. You appear to have your own odd religion when you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. How do you justify such beliefs?
I'm not convinced you are correct. Did you know that Revelations almost wasn't included in the final version of the Bible?