Muffled
Jesus in me
Of course I believe God is with me all the time.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Churchianity has Hidden the REAL God and the REAL Christ for 2,000 years!
Of course I believe God is with me all the time.
Muffled
Jesus in me
John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
I believe He is known by those He abides in.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you won't do any better at understanding the Bible than the church does. You can have ideas about the Bible but will they stand up under scrutiny?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
I am afraid many church teachings do not stand up under scrutiny.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So what text would you like to debate?
Not exactly correct. Christianity, the religion laid out by the false prophet Paul, and established by the beast with two horns like a lamb, the 7th head of the beast of Revelation 17, Constantine, at his convened Council of Nicaea, is the "legitimate" religion of Rome per the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius, and is built on the false Nicene Trinity concept. Its legitimacy is based on the power of Rome, and per Daniel 2:44, Rome, the nations/kingdoms, have not been completely "crushed at this time". You seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Sorry I'm late answering this. I arrived on this forum only recently.
It seems to me that heresies forced Christianity to define God to the point of ridiculous. Now the same heresies are turning around and ridiculing those things that they initially caused the Church to come up with as definitions.
Nothing personal, just an observation of the big picture.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
you lost all credibility right here.
Forced? No, my experience with churches and a smattering of church history leads me to believe something far worse. The churches struggled against each other, inviting in interference from politicians. Doctrinal disagreement should have never been a public problem. Its clear that for many years the bishops were able to politely disagree and suppress problems caused by rabble rousers, but they also encouraged strife. Eventually one or more of them turned things into a brawl -- evidence of ambition. Its mostly documented. Some of it is interpolation (connecting the dots). It tells us nothing about who had the better argument. In fact I think arguing caused people nothing except trouble, and the creeds were a terrible burden and a mistake. The division of East and the West was merely the icing on the infighting cake, a divorce recognizing a lack of love in a marriage that had already been broken.
I suggest several books: When Jesus Became God, (R. Rubenstein), A History of the Catholic Church, (H. Kung), and Greek Orthodox Patrology, (Chrestou). All of these books are inexpensive, highly regarded and are likely available through your local library.
I think what happened was that first of all the Christians engaged in finger pointing, fault finding and doctrine wrangling, just as we do today. Then sooner or later one or more of the bishops got ambitions, just like now, and so everything got political just like now. From what I am told there was actually physical violence long before the councils. Some Christians fought physically over disagreements about abstract philosophical things! This is just as occasionally happens in modern times. I think that wasn't really what they were fighting about, but it was their excuse. I think that such bad behavior invited the politicians to get involved where they shouldn't have, and of course they chose the bishoprics to do it.
So, no I don't think they were forced, just as we today are not forced. We simply like to control things.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I'd be pleased, if not amused, to see how you define God.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
"First of all"??? Would that be before Jesus was executed or after? Before Stephen's martyrdom or after? Before Saul's conversion or after? Before Roman legions destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem or after? My point: Chronologies of events that neglect, gloss over, or invent events generate biases.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
@Sunstone
a. First Issue: In my Post #19 of your thread, Important Questionnaire #21: RF Rule 3, I asked three questions:
I dare any rational, reasonable person, atheist or theist, Christian or non-Christian, Trinitarian or Non-trinitarian or Anti-trinitarian to show me any attempt in the OP to do anything other than offend Trinitarians Christians.
b. Second Issue: Elsewhere, previously, I raised the possibility of creation of a "Dead-End Forum", a "graveyard", if you will, of threads which serve as examples of discussions and/or debates which recycle ancient conflicts and NEVER-EVER reach a settled-upon conclusion, including an agreement never to engage in discussion and/or debate of the matter again. I submit this thread as an example of the kind of thread which I deem worthy of movement to my proposed "Dead-End Forum".
For the record, I would like to point out that the OP's author identifies him- or herself as a Jehovah's Witness. I would have expected nothing less than the noxious OP from a true JW.
a. First Issue: In my Post #19 of your thread, Important Questionnaire #21: RF Rule 3, I asked three questions:
- "What if the content is itself prima facie evidence to the target of the content that the OP is, from the get-go, needlessly offensive?"
- "So, when is an offense an offense? When a minority or a majority see it and call it for what it is?"
I dare any rational, reasonable person, atheist or theist, Christian or non-Christian, Trinitarian or Non-trinitarian or Anti-trinitarian to show me any attempt in the OP to do anything other than offend Trinitarians Christians.
b. Second Issue: Elsewhere, previously, I raised the possibility of creation of a "Dead-End Forum", a "graveyard", if you will, of threads which serve as examples of discussions and/or debates which recycle ancient conflicts and NEVER-EVER reach a settled-upon conclusion, including an agreement never to engage in discussion and/or debate of the matter again. I submit this thread as an example of the kind of thread which I deem worthy of movement to my proposed "Dead-End Forum".
For the record, I would like to point out that the OP's author identifies him- or herself as a Jehovah's Witness. I would have expected nothing less than the noxious OP from a true JW.
Terry, you're nice to posters. I notice you like to be polite and friendly. Thanks.
I think that what we are discussing is Christianity in its ongoing long war against the antichrist spirit within people, and Christianity has taken some hits in this war which I think should surprise no one. We should work to undo the damage and re-establish supply lines instead of being proud of our losses. Yay we bravely suffered defeat.
Imagine humanity as a materiel that is being explored and tested to determine its properties and capabilities. Christianity is doing that among other things.
Christianity is testing the strength and the possibilities of humanity, really pushing the boundaries beyond what anyone before it has seen accomplished. Christianity is pitted against internal problems within the human species including antichrist, and I think unexpected problems should be an understood thing. Of course there are cracks. Of course there are failures. Christianity is intended to expose and to resist those things which have always caused humanity to fail which are styled by NT writers the enemies of Christ. These are the weaknesses which must be overcome. I think Paul comments on this somewhere in one or more of his letters that he is expecting trouble, fallout, infighting, squabbling, although it is the writer John who coins the term antichrist by squishing together anti with christ. He is also the writer who gives use Jesus prayer for the unity of his followers, demonstrating Jesus doesn't think unity comes from the scratch of a pen. He prays for it, so he obviously knows its not easy to get it.
I certainly don't mean to slam Christianity, but I do slam these creeds which are wounds to me and failures. They are not things to be proud of or recited or called blessed. They come out strife and are an embarrassment and are unnecessary. I don't disagree with the trinity but with the audacity to demand mouth service to one bishop or another and to his creed. Why put up barriers? Can the spirit go where it wills? Do we believe that?
Before Jesus was executed there were no Christians in my opinion, but let me try to get to your point's peak and not get caught in its fringe as I hike to the point at the top. I don't think I need to dispute about timelines at all. There is enough history intact to verify that bishopric struggles against one another are political, not spiritual, in nature. They are I suggest antichristian in origin rather than struggles against antichrist, not that bishops are evil or that anything beyond saying that these struggles are political and are not worthy. I think there is enough of human nature to verify that the struggle with antichrist begins at the beginning long before bishops and is internal not external, however the bias in my post is not generated by an invented chronology of events. It doesn't depend upon when John was written or when the temple fell or where bishops come from or even which far flung theory of the origin of Christianity is better. Ok I do assume some things. I assume that John is a well intentioned writer who is concerned about the unity of Christians. Sue me if that is too large an assumption!
I think that what we are discussing is Christianity in its ongoing long war against the antichrist spirit within people, and Christianity has taken some hits in this war which I think should surprise no one. We should work to undo the damage and re-establish supply lines instead of being proud of our losses. Yay we bravely suffered defeat.
Imagine humanity as a materiel that is being explored and tested to determine its properties and capabilities. Christianity is doing that among other things.
Christianity is testing the strength and the possibilities of humanity, really pushing the boundaries beyond what anyone before it has seen accomplished. Christianity is pitted against internal problems within the human species including antichrist, and I think unexpected problems should be an understood thing. Of course there are cracks. Of course there are failures. Christianity is intended to expose and to resist those things which have always caused humanity to fail which are styled by NT writers the enemies of Christ. These are the weaknesses which must be overcome. I think Paul comments on this somewhere in one or more of his letters that he is expecting trouble, fallout, infighting, squabbling, although it is the writer John who coins the term antichrist by squishing together anti with christ. He is also the writer who gives use Jesus prayer for the unity of his followers, demonstrating Jesus doesn't think unity comes from the scratch of a pen. He prays for it, so he obviously knows its not easy to get it.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
LOL! If you're not being facetious, can I use you as a reference? I've been runnin' short of them lately.
#2. Slam away. This is a good thread to do it in. You view creeds as sources of unnecessary embarassment. I don't. Although I identify myself as a "Creedalist Xian", I chose that label because it was slightly, ever so slightly more useful, I thought at the time that I chose it, than "Eclectic Idolater". Initially, when I chose it, I had a specific creed in mind: the Apostle's Creed. Lately, I have had misgivings about the single phrase in the second article: "qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto" (who was conceived by the Holy Spirit)." Consequentally, I probably shouldn't be identifying myself as a "Creedalist". But identifying myself as a Xian in RF, is barely meaningful at best, IMO, and more brief than saying that I am not Muslim, Messianic Jew, Jew, Baha'i, and not a non-Abrahmic; that I am not a Sabbatarian, nor an Anti-trinitarian, et aliae.
#3. I continue to value and confess the Apostle's Creed, because, at 71, my memory fades and I dare to hope that it will be the among the very last things I can still remember before I fall off my horse and have to catch a train out of this world. In other words, the Apostle's Creed is, for me, a checklist of things. Barriers? Nah. Distinctions, I'd say, ... distinctions worth remembering. Do they prevent me from trusting God and valuing righteousness? I'm pretty sure that I'm up ****-creek without a paddle if they do. Distinctions for what purpose, then? For the purpose of deciding who I can sing the Te Deum with, for starters.
#4. You can't be faulted for not knowing this, but, for the record, I'm a "Charismatic Renewal" kind of Christian. I affirm the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and signs including tongues and prophecy. I also affirm that the Spirit goes where it is sent, not where it wills.
I remember this saying: "Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven..." Then neither should I object if someone speaks against Christianity. Of course anyone who speaks against the Son of Man might nevertheless be sinners, even if they are forgiven. Its better not to err, so I should try to avoid it I guess.
Classification is one thing, but this is a barrier between people. "Say what I say or I can't commune with you." People actually say that to one another! Its like saying "We're working towards fellowship together, but we just can't agree on whether the carpet should be red or green." God would probably see all of our disagreements with equal contempt. Red/green carpet is about the limit of our cognitive ability to comprehend spiritual things, and we will waste that ability in disagreement, too. It feels good to be righter than someone else or to be wronged or to be annoyed. We crave all these things that come from strife.
In my opinion people of your experience ought to be the ones handling church matters, not sleek educated young people (or worse uneducated young people or somebody who just wants a vocation). Sure, the spirit goes where it wills; but that doesn't mean we should put young men into church leadership. I think it makes them either arrogant or fake or makes them like eggs cracked too early, something like that. When someone is immature you don't yet know what they will be. Put someone in charge who has experienced things, some failures, some successes, knows something besides just school. Newlyweds? I can't believe people hire newlyweds for pastors. Its just crazy pills to me.
Many people are able to thrive in charismatic churches. I hope that my family do well. They're all charismatics. They don't try to force me to be charismatic. That's cool of them. I'm so glad that I'm righter than they are about speaking in tongues, but as you can imagine this matters very little in the great scheme of things.
I don't read that many posts. I just feel like you're nice. Maybe its your picture? It reminds me of Samuel Clemmons what with the mustache.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is true. There were a lot of things I took for granted but under scrutiny the picture is much different.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that reveals that yo do not know God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the words were barely out of the mouth of Jesus that He was going to die, when Peter tried to deny that would happen. And there are those who still deny it happened.