What is different between REAL CHRISTIANITY & a CULT that thinks it's "Christian"?

[dairyair]

Oh man, the things a trinitarian will say, lol.

This is a strange post.....you just "did" what you accused them of doing.

Why yes, you are doing what you called strange thing for another to do.

 

[dairyair]

Yeah, Jesus was putting his trust in Jehovah, knowing He would resurrect him...he was dead in the grave/hell for parts of 3 days...

Actually, from the bible stories I read and was told about, he was in a tomb. A cave.

 

[dairyair]

Galatians 5:13-26​

​

Young's Literal Translation​

​

​

13 For ye -- to freedom ye were called, brethren, only not the freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through the love serve ye one another,
14 for all the law in one word is fulfilled -- in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;'
15 and if one another ye do bite and devour, see -- that ye may not by one another be consumed.
16 And I say: In the Spirit walk ye, and the desire of the flesh ye may not complete;
17 for the flesh doth desire contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit contrary to the flesh, and these are opposed one to another, that the things that ye may will -- these ye may not do;
18 and if by the Spirit ye are led, ye are not under law.
19 And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit.
22 And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;
24 and those who are Christ's, the flesh did crucify with the affections, and the desires;
25 if we may live in the Spirit, in the Spirit also we may walk;
26 let us not become vain-glorious -- one another provoking, one another envying!

There you go. Words that have been translated.
Several times. How many different English language versions are there?


Not a single on of them have translated the original hebrew words exactly perfect.

What is Mary? A virgin? Or a young Maiden. Afterall, she was practically married at conception and was married at birth.
She may have not been a virgin.

 

[Felis Leo]

I feel there has to be something to it, because I find it ludicrous to believe that the universe stops ****ing with you just because you died.

Yeah, but unfortunately for most people, Gods do exist, but only the Aztec Gods. The ones that flay their worshippers and sprinkle their blood on the Earth in order to make the sun rise and the crops grow.

The existence of supreme beings like Huitzilopochtli and Xipe Totec would certainly be a more sensible (if less desirable) explanation as to why things are the way that they are than an all-powerful, all-loving, all-good and all-just God like Jehovah being in control of the Universe does.

 

[Daisy]

Actually, from the bible stories I read and was told about, he was in a tomb. A cave.

Was that not his grave? BTW, KJV says in Acts 2:31...

King James Bible
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

 

[Lursa]

Have you read the OT?
There's no such thing in those books about forgiveness, peace, love.

It's obey or be killed as the general message to the Hebrew clans.


The NT is not written by god at all. It has several authors trying to figure out how to get non Jewish people into a religion.

Mostly all acknowledged in my post.

 

[renee]

And of course Donald is known for his humble and forgiving nature.

I suggest you put((sarcasm ) or lol after that because the magas believe that Trump is humble and forgiving

 

[renee]

True "Christianity" is a personal relationship with GOD through CHRIST and the working of the HOLY SPIRIT, that changes one's A religion requires membership/attachment to a human group with promise regardless of personal attachment to some deity

Not in the least. Christ doesn't care what Church one attends (as long as HE is its foundation). Christ does care that one believes HE loves us very much and willingly died to save the lost. And that HE arose from the grave to provide eternal life to whosoever will receive HIM. Churches that say they are the way are NOT. Churches that reject GOD's Word are preaching a different gospel that CHRIST warned against.

I assume that your wife is subservient like the Bible says. Trump has broken just about every commandment, but he’s still adored..

 

[renee]

Very low tier response.

God's existence remains a rigorously debated and contested subject in Oxford's philosophy department. You can scrutinize the theology and merits of a particular religion with good arguments, but disinterested handwaving just makes you an intellectual luddite.

I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened

 

[Lycanthrope]

I suggest you put((sarcasm ) or lol after that because the magas believe that Trump is humble and forgiving

They've also suggested it's proper to kneel for Donald because forgiving the unrepentant man his many faults and corruptions is somehow "Christian."

Unreal.

 

[Gozaburo]

I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened

I'm not familiar with any form of theism which claims the scope of God's existence includes or is reducible to 'a man in the sky'.

 

[renee]

Don't get caught up in comparison and one up-man ship, everyone has a unique relation with God and it's not defined by so-called Christian norms nor popular opinion.

And more and more people do not have a relationship with a supernatural God

 

[Gordy327]

I just cannot suspend all logic and believe that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened

But it's the most intellectually simplistic and emotionally appealing answer. Notice how it requires no further thought or inquiry. It's the kind of explanation one gives to a child who has not yet developed the capacity for reason.

 

[renee]

1st and foremost real Christians...

“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’  This is the greatest and first commandment." Matthew 22:37,38

Real Christians believe in and follow their Savior and exemplar, Jesus Christ...

"Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples," John 8:31

Real Christians base their beliefs on the Bible, just as Jesus did...

"And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:27

Real Christians do more than talk about love....they show by their words and actions that they love one another as Christ loves us...

"This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you." John 15:12

Real Christians do just as Jesus did...they preach Bible truth wherever people are because they love their neighbors and they gladly use their time and energy to share the Bible’s message of hope and comfort...

"And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus." Acts 5:42

Real Christians continue to search for and hunger for Bible truths...

“Happy are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, since they will be filled." Matthew 5:6

True Christians practice what they preach...

"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." Matthew 7:21...

Who defines righteousness?

 

[Master Debator]

You claimed to only believe in empirically deducible evidences and now you're claiming that is not the case. Which is it?

No, that's not what I claimed. I said that things claimed to be objectively true should be proven with empirical data or logic and reason. I believe in lots of subjective things, like the superiority of Jamaican cuisine. I just recognize it as such.

Well we seem to be having a hard time nailing down how it is you even go about knowing something, so I'd say my confusion is justified.

You keep trying to rope me into your problems with this we business. Your confusion in this instance is your own.

Probably because you've never engaged in higher order thinking about the assumptions you make on first principles.

I don't even know what you mean by first principles. You'd have to explain what you're talking about before I can't tell you my thoughts on it or whether I've had any before. That's kind of how that works....

'Eternal' in a temporal sense is not the same as 'infinite' in a spatial sense, which is what I took your 'infinite universe' to mean.

What does that even mean? Temporal also relates to time as can the word infinite. As in existing forever.

I mean if you'd like to tell the scientific community that inductive reasoning isn't the bedrock of the scientific method then you can feel free to do that. You may get laughed at.

No... I'd just like you tell me what your problem with it is, like I asked you.

I'm not sure how chaotic physical laws are a defeater for a religious worldview.

Is your uncertainty supposed to be an argument about anything other than yourself and your lack of confidence?

And like I've said, 'objective observations' is a claim which is first of all kind of incoherent (objective to who?) and second, includes a hefty amount of metaphysical baggage. You haven't really demonstrated why your (or anyone's) observations are objective.

Well first, objective in this instance simply means an observation about a thing not related to your personal feelings and sentiments and by that I mean the distinction from what your eyes are seeing as opposed to how you feel about what you're seeing. And you know your observations to be true by the consequences. If you observe sturdy ground where there is a deep chasm it will be made apparent to you when you fall in.

Why are we talking about possible laws we haven't seen in possible places we don't know exist? I'm referring to the laws we do observe.

Ok, what do you want to say about them?

If the past cannot be observed,

But it can be so already this line of reasoning has failed. As I said when you look up at the stars in the night sky you're seeing light after its spent millions, perhaps billions of years traveling to you. The thing that emitted its light can be completely gone by the time its light reaches your eyes. You're literally looking at light from the past.

then empirical evidence alone isn't sufficient because the scientific method relies uniformity in nature to reach conclusions.

I don't even know what you mean by this. What do you mean by uniformity in nature? The scientific method is about testing theories to reach conclusions.

Research David Hume's (an atheist) problem of induction to understand this, but here's a summary:

Induction is the practice of believing any regularity we observe will continue. So, the sun will come up tomorrow, because it always has, objects will fall towards the earth, etc.

Who is arguing the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has? This Hume guy sounds like a ****ing moron making up other peoples arguments for them. These things are conditional.

The only way to justify believing the future will be like the past, is that in the past, it's worked like that. That's circular reasoning. The empirical tradition does not permit viscous circular reasoning. So, although Hume thinks induction works, he admits there is no logical reason it should. Why does past experience give any ability to reason about the future?

Things work until they don't and then we adjust our thinking. This Hume guy sounds like a moron confusing himself for no reason.

 

[Daisy]

Who defines righteousness?

Jehovah God does...

 

[Gozaburo]

No, that's not what I claimed. I said that things claimed to be objectively true should be proven with empirical data or logic and reason.

You initially said you rejected philosophical rigor, but now you agree that logic and reason are valid modes of reaching conclusions. I agree!

I don't even know what you mean by first principles. You've had to explain what you're talking about before I can't tell you my thoughts on it or whether I've had any before.

Alright I've listed a few two or three times now and I've described what I mean when I say 'foundational beliefs' or 'first principles.

What does that even mean? Temporal also relates to time as can the word infinite. As in existing forever.

I took your original comment to mean 'infinite' in a spatial sense, meaning its vastness. If you meant the universe has always existed, then say as much.

Is your uncertainty supposed to be an argument about anything other than yourself and your lack of confidence?

What?

Well first, objective in this instance simply means an observation about a thing not related to your personal feelings and sentiments and by that I mean the distinction from what your eyes are seeing as opposed to how you feel about what you're seeing. And you know your observations to be true by the consequences. If you observe sturdy ground where there is a deep chasm it will be made apparent to you when you fall in.

Your ability to even expect consistent consequences - like falling into a chasm - presupposes a universe where nature operates uniformly. In your view what justifies your trust that reality will remain orderly tomorrow?

But it can be so already this line of reasoning has failed. As I said when you look up at the stars in the night sky you're seeing light after its spent millions, perhaps billions of years traveling to you. The thing that emitted its light can be completely gone by the time its light reaches your eyes. You're literally looking at light from the past.

Lol. Your line of argumentation actually supports my point. You trust that the light you see traveled millions of years, following consistent physical laws, and that your senses and reasoning can reliably interpret it. Why?

I don't even know what you mean by this. What do you mean by uniformity in nature? The scientific method is about testing theories to reach conclusions.

I mean the assumption that the laws of physics, causality, and logic operate consistently across time and space - something you rely on when you trust the scientific method. What grounds your confidence that reality is orderly enough for the scientific method to make conclusions?

Who is arguing the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has? This Hume guy sounds like a ****ing moron making up other peoples arguments for them. These things are conditional.


Things work until they don't and then we adjust our thinking. This Hume guy sounds like a moron confusing himself for no reason.

'Adjusting our thinking' still assumes the conditions you're testing remain consistent enough to trust your results. Hume is pointing out that there is no rational basis for assuming the conditions governing nature's regularities (and by extension, empirical observation) will hold in the future without presupposing uniformity.

If you say all things are "conditional", you're still assuming a framework where conditions are consistent enough to be reliable.

 

[Logician Man]

Who defines righteousness?

Righteous - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com​

Do you consider yourself a moral person, who tries to do good and be good? If the answer is yes, you are righteous — in the right.

Being righteous literally means to be right, especially in a moral way. Religious people often talk about being righteous. In their view, the righteous person not only does the right thing for other people but also follows the laws of their religion. Heroes like Martin Luther King are often called righteous. On the other hand, this word can be a little negative. If you call someone self-righteous, it means they're a little too sure they're right and better than other people.

 

[renee]

Righteous - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com​

Do you consider yourself a moral person, who tries to do good and be good? If the answer is yes, you are righteous — in the right.

Being righteous literally means to be right, especially in a moral way. Religious people often talk about being righteous. In their view, the righteous person not only does the right thing for other people but also follows the laws of their religion. Heroes like Martin Luther King are often called righteous. On the other hand, this word can be a little negative. If you call someone self-righteous, it means they're a little too sure they're right and better than other people.

What is righteous to me may be not righteous to someone else.

 

[renee]

Jehovah God does...

And so do Muslims and so do Christians and so do Jews, etc. I don’t need someone to tell me what is right or wrong, I know in my heart what is right

 

[Daisy]

And so do Muslims and so do Christians and so do Jews, etc. I don’t need someone to tell me what is right or wrong, I know in my heart what is right

My heart has led me down the wrong path more than once in my life...from my own personal experience I've learned to listen to God's Word for the best possible outcome...after all, the Bible says that “the heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

 

[Logician Man]

What is righteous to me may be not righteous to someone else.

Totally agree with the above, renee.

 

[Gordy327]

Totally agree with the above, renee.

I concur too.

 

[LittleNipper]

There you go. Words that have been translated.
Several times. How many different English language versions are there?


Not a single on of them have translated the original hebrew words exactly perfect.

What is Mary? A virgin? Or a young Maiden. Afterall, she was practically married at conception and was married at birth.
She may have not been a virgin.

One must read the Bible in context of every other verse in the Bible. But what do Jews think? https://www.jewishvoice.org/read/article/was-mary-virgin

 

[TypicalRussian]

Christianity doesn't even bother with ethics. It just tells you the world is fallen, and the only way you can be saved is to just find the right God to grovel before- so good luck with that- because it seems like just a lottery ticket.

How does that help advance rational discussions of ethics/politics?

Christianity was the best thing to ethics anyone could have asked for. In fact you could make the case they were the OG feminists

What stopped the Islamic Golden Age was when they lay aside the Greek philosophy they had discovered (al-falsafah) and went back to an emphasis on mysticism, blind and unquestioning obedience to revelation, and faith- no different than the Christianity of the time.

Al-Ghazali - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Christianity of this era has never been less mystical. I know many young Orthodox Christians who dont care for the mystical tradition and just want to joint to "own the libs"