Do you believe in God?

[TheCracker]

Not to mention the fact that Christianity itself is a denomination, regardless of flavor.

If I was forced at gunpoint to go to church, I would probably choose Unitarian Universalists, but it would still be under protest.

That would make a good poll:

If you were forced at gunpoint to go to church, which one would you go to?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Because you tithe and give equal weight to the Old Testament. Together, these are pretty much unique to Catholicism.

Most, if not all denominations of Christianity beleive that. Since the New Testament came through, or by way of, and is based in the Old Testament, they are inseperably linked.

However, even assuming that you aren't Catholic, you do belong to a certain sect of Christianity - and that sect is a product of denominalisation, in which you don't believe. Which kinda cements the fact that belief isn't relevant to reality

Interesting concept, but I don't agree with it.
As far as I can determine, for the first 300 years of the Christian faith, the only label of distinction was locale.

Doctrinal defining and labeling was a result of the marriage of Church and State, which Constantine initiated. Hence the first "Denomination". Paul who started most of the original Churches clearly warns against becoming sidetracked with that type of issue.

The Reformation marked a turning point back toward the original precepts of the Church. However centuries of this influence had certainly taken its toll.
The next big step was the birth of the USA wherein an official seperation of the two was instituted. Again however, the engrained instituting of Doctrinal labeling and identification still predominated. In my opinion, the Church is just beginning now to re-embrace the Faith/Spirit base of the original, marked by the recent explosive growth of the "non affiliated" independent ministries. Of and to which I belong.

 

[Famine]

Most, if not all denominations of Christianity beleive that. Since the New Testament came through, or by way of, and is based in the Old Testament, they are inseperably linked.

Err, no.

The Old Testament is used in an allegorical fashion in many sects of Christianity and in an as-fact fashion in others. Some sects reject it altogether....

Interesting concept, but I don't agree with it.
As far as I can determine, for the first 300 years of the Christian faith, the only label of distinction was locale.

Doctrinal defining and labeling was a result of the marriage of Church and State, which Constantine initiated. Hence the first "Denomination". Paul who started most of the original Churches clearly warns against becoming sidetracked with that type of issue.

The Reformation marked a turning point back toward the original precepts of the Church. However centuries of this influence had certainly taken its toll.
The next big step was the birth of the USA wherein an official seperation of the two was instituted. Again however, the engrained instituting of Doctrinal labeling and identification still predominated. In my opinion, the Church is just beginning now to re-embrace the Faith/Spirit base of the original, marked by the recent explosive growth of the "non affiliated" independent ministries. Of and to which I belong.

I see. That marks you out as a Pentacostalist.

It's interesting to note that the Orthodox variants would believe in almost exactly the same things that you do, but would denounce your version of Christianity as you got it from a translated version of the books - and call it a "denomination". Of course to you, your version is right even though you're reading it 6th-hand and they are the denomination...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Err, no.

The Old Testament is used in an allegorical fashion in many sects of Christianity and in an as-fact fashion in others. Some sects reject it altogether....

Be that as it may, they are "inseperably linked".

I see. That marks you out as a Pentacostalist.

Some have labled it as such. I refer to it as the original recipe.

It's interesting to note that the Orthodox variants would believe in almost exactly the same things that you do, but would denounce your version of Christianity as you got it from a translated version of the books - and call it a "denomination". Of course to you, your version is right even though you're reading it 6th-hand and they are the denomination...

I'm not arguing who's right, who's wrong, who's variant is this, who's translation is that.
I'm relaying what I believe and why, based on my research.
Due to that, I contend that the end result of denominationalsm is a ritualizing, secularizing and/or watering down of the original recipe.

I don't know where you get this 6th hand translation stuff. All the books of the New Testament and most of the old are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Famine]

Be that as it may, they are "inseperably linked".

Like The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King.

Some have labled it as such. I refer to it as the original recipe.

To which orthodox Christians would object.

I'm not arguing who's right, who's wrong, who's variant is this, who's translation is that.
I'm relaying what I believe and why, based on my research.
Due to that, I contend that the end result of denominationalsm is a ritualizing, secularizing and/or watering down of the original recipe.

I don't know where you get this 6th hand translation stuff. All the books of the New Testament and most of the old are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew.

Err, no. The nearest you'll get to the "original" has passed through Greek and Latin translation - having been partially-translated through Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew at various points. Your Bible can draw its roots to the Latin language Codex Amianatus, which itself is a partial copy (with additions) of the Greek language Bible of St. Jerome - as used by the Eastern Orthodox church, who view your Bible as an impure form.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Like The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King.

Don't know anything about that.

To which orthodox Christians would object.

May or may not, I wouldn't know.

Err, no. The nearest you'll get to the "original" has passed through Greek and Latin translation - having been partially-translated through Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew at various points. Your Bible can draw its roots to the Latin language Codex Amianatus, which itself is a partial copy (with additions) of the Greek language Bible of St. Jerome - as used by the Eastern Orthodox church, who view your Bible as an impure form.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.
So exactly what difference is there?

As Duke pointed out in a prior post, Christians do not necessarily agree on everything.

 

[orimarc]

As Duke pointed out in a prior post, Christians do not necessarily agree on everything.

But...they should. I mean, they pray to the same "god". See, that's one problem we have with religion. Ask this question:

Why we find this fossil from year x?

You'll get (not exactly) these anwsers:
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from USA: Because that animal died on year x and that skeleton part kept on the ground while years and years of volcanos, heat, cold, wind, rain, etc...modeled the earth crust over it.
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from Germany: ^
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from Isreal: ^
Christianism follower from USA: God put it there to test your faith.
Islam follower from Israel: Allah put that there to prove he's right.
Pastafarism follower from Germany: The FSM eated the animal and dug it to see what happened.

See? Why can't all the religions believe and think in the same?


Sorry for the simplification.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But...they should. I mean, they pray to the same "god". See, that's one problem we have with religion. Ask this question:

Why we find this fossil from year x?

You'll get (not exactly) these anwsers:
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from USA: Because that animal died on year x and that skeleton part kept on the ground while years and years of volcanos, heat, cold, wind, rain, etc...modeled the earth crust over it.
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from Germany: ^
Scientific in evolutionary biologism and geology from Isreal: ^
Christianism follower from USA: God put it there to test your faith.
Islam follower from Israel: Allah put that there to prove he's right.
Pastafarism follower from Germany: The FSM eated the animal and dug it to see what happened.

See? Why can't all the religions believe and think in the same?


Sorry for the simplification.

As far as the Christian Religion (I don't know about others) Paul pointed out in the New Testament, people(believers) can have different levels of Faith in different categories and regaurdless of your faith level you should not do anything to hurt or damage anothers. That is why I don't really consider the different sects and denominations of Christianity a right or a wrong issue.
Rather its a Faith issue. But for me personally I don't embrace it for the reasons I have already given, along with the same reason you give above.

In my opinion, not all religions pray to the same GOD. However they may pray in sincerity.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Most, if not all denominations of Christianity beleive that. Since the New Testament came through, or by way of, and is based in the Old Testament, they are inseperably linked.

The Jewish comunity would disagree.

 

[Keef]

That doesn't surprise me in the least.
So exactly what difference is there?

What doesn't surprise you? That the Bible is a mish-mash of partially-translated scripts from a few different languages? And that, besides the fact that you already know no translation, even between modern languages, is 100% accurate. A simple grammar mistake in any translation could result in an entirely different meaning. You already said that your denomination is the "original recipe", but then when Famine cites it as a mutt like all the others, you say "that doesn't surprise me". Speaking of which, I'm having waffles for lunch.

As Duke pointed out in a prior post, Christians do not necessarily agree on everything.

That fact scars the credibility of religion in general, and especially Christianity. For the most part the science community will come to a conclusion when enough evidence presents itself, but since there is no hard evidence supporting any sort of religion they constantly banter back and forth with no rhyme or reason, never coming to a conclusion. In my opinion the only way to get someone to believe what you believe without reason is to start a war and conquer them.

Doctrinal defining and labeling was a result of the marriage of Church and State, which Constantine initiated. Hence the first "Denomination". Paul who started most of the original Churches clearly warns against becoming sidetracked with that type of issue.

As far as the Christian Religion (I don't know about others) Paul pointed out in the New Testament, people(believers) can have different levels of Faith in different categories and regaurdless of your faith level you should not do anything to hurt or damage anothers. That is why I don't really consider the different sects and denominations of Christianity a right or a wrong issue.

So what you're saying is that Paul supported the idea that even though people have varying amounts of faith and may believe in slightly different things and whatnot, that it's still one big happy religion family. And that apparently this Constantine character is the source of denominationalism. Therefore, we can blame all wars that were a result of denominations fighting for their own beliefs on Constantine. Wow. I thought Obama had some bad ideas, but Constantine's were so bad that he's the cause of pretty much every war since their birth of Christianity.

 

[GT40 MKII]

I do not believe in god for after being stabbed in the back by so many perfect christians i choose not to follow the herd but go another way.... After seein my christian parents pull their tricks i choose NOT to follow their religious beliefs.... i choose NOT to let some book dictate my life but to dictate my life the way I want to...

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Me and some friends threw bibles into a fire when we were 12 years old or something, I've been really hard and unkind to my mother pretty often, I've been shoplifting candy when I was about 12 or 13 (lol), I swear a lot, drinking alcohol almost every weekend, I've not done many good deeds in my life, I have never ever prayed, and much more... The only thing you believers could call a punishment for being the "bad" person I am, is that I've been trying to get a girlfriend for quite some time now, without luck.

I'm healthy, have a lot of friends, great and healthy family (although my mom pisses me off sometimes), none of my relatives are christians or any other religion for that matter, I had good/decent grades when I graduated from school and I won when a couple of friends and I played bowling last night.

Now, could one of you christians (or believers of any sort) give me a very good explaination on how this can be?

You're young, God is patient.

Saul used to hate Christians and put them to death. Then he became Paul, and wrote most of the New Testament. God may have plans for you 20 years from now.

Just look at this thread you created.

 

[Northstar]

I don't think he will look at this thread anymore as he is banned.

 

[Lucas]

God wanted him to create this thread, and at the same time wanted him to be banned from the forum. The irony.

 

[Danoff]

God wanted him to create this thread, and at the same time wanted him to be banned from the forum. The irony.

Perhaps God didn't want him making this thread - perhaps it was the Devil. God then directed the moderating staff to ban him for his evil ways.

God looked down from his cloudy throne in Heaven (which, since its located in the clouds is actually in the Troposphere - not far at all). And directed the mod staff to counteract the infernal commands sent from the lava and fire pits of hell (which is located beneath the Earth's surface toward the Mantle - possibly in the crust due to the mixture of magma and stalactites we typically see. Hell may actually be even closer than Heaven).

I always enjoy thinking about this - how people have these concepts of Heaven and Hell in their minds. Those concepts stem back to a time when we thought we could see Heaven from the ground (clouds) and we thought we could walk right up to the gates of hell (caves).

 

[Lucas]

That last one actually is the coolest concept of hell, unlike the other one. You forgot one, though: we can get there through means of a highway too.

 

[Northstar]

That last one actually is the coolest concept of hell, unlike the other one. You forgot one, though: we can get there through means of a highway too.

Just wondering, would the Autobahn be the highway to hell?
There are not stop signs or speed limits.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Just wondering, would the Autobahn be the highway to hell?
There are not stop signs or speed limits.

No, no no. Heaven and hell are now located in another dimension. You just have to find a Christian that believes in other dimensions. As evolution dictates, Christianity evolves over time, according to science and current knowledge, so as not to be completely impossible, so long as the imagination can keep up.
Hell was in the ground, and heaven in the clouds, but then we sent planes up to the sky, and even into space, and we saw it wasn't there. Nobody could really accept that it is there anymore, so now it's "somewhere humans can't reach". Which to me means another dimension, that's what I'd assume anyway.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What doesn't surprise you? That the Bible is a mish-mash of partially-translated scripts from a few different languages? And that, besides the fact that you already know no translation, even between modern languages, is 100% accurate. A simple grammar mistake in any translation could result in an entirely different meaning. You already said that your denomination is the "original recipe", but then when Famine cites it as a mutt like all the others, you say "that doesn't surprise me". Speaking of which, I'm having waffles for lunch.

In my research thus far, I do not find a consensus for this apparent assumptive poor translation theory. The source of contention seems to be centered not in translation, but rather the Canonization process. The books of the modern era Bible read essentially the same as St. Jeromes. The arguments lay in the Canonization process that pared some original books over time, based on an established set of criteria. These books are available to read and I have read most if not all of them. I do not have an opinion on them as of yet other than at this point I don't see where they add or subtract from the basic theme or truths of the retained books.

I am not a part of or belong to, any denomination.
If anything the attempt or necessity to label or categorize, lends credence to the fact, as I said, it is well ingrained.

Let me ask you this. Of what denomination was the original Church?

That fact scars the credibility of religion in general, and especially Christianity. For the most part the science community will come to a conclusion when enough evidence presents itself, but since there is no hard evidence supporting any sort of religion they constantly banter back and forth with no rhyme or reason, never coming to a conclusion. In my opinion the only way to get someone to believe what you believe without reason is to start a war and conquer them.

I see no difference. The Scientifc Community disagree constantly about practically eveything.
There is some consensus on certain things, however take for instance,"Global Warming". Their all over the map.

So what you're saying is that Paul supported the idea that even though people have varying amounts of faith and may believe in slightly different things and whatnot, that it's still one big happy religion family. And that apparently this Constantine character is the source of denominationalism. Therefore, we can blame all wars that were a result of denominations fighting for their own beliefs on Constantine. Wow. I thought Obama had some bad ideas, but Constantine's were so bad that he's the cause of pretty much every war since their birth of Christianity.

I don't think the reality is exactly "one big happy family".

While I don't know if you can blame everything on Constantine his melding of Christianity and National-Civil authority is a matter of Historical record. "The Roman Empire" became "The Holy Roman Empire" accompanied by the first Denomination or "The Holy Roman Catholic Church."

 

[Touring Mars]

I always enjoy thinking about this - how people have these concepts of Heaven and Hell in their minds. Those concepts stem back to a time when we thought we could see Heaven from the ground (clouds) and we thought we could walk right up to the gates of hell (caves).

Same here, although not unlike other religious concepts (i.e. God, for example), the definition of exactly what 'heaven' is is pretty difficult to pin down, and hence people who believe in the existence of heaven are often reluctant to entertain a full discussion about what it actually is, and the fuller implications of their beliefs.

Unfortunately, many questions about the nature of heaven are simply unanswerable, but equally many possible answers (including some commonly held beliefs) are really quite absurd. I personally think that if anything like the realm of heaven actually exists, it will be very alien to the human experience, so alien infact that we cannot even imagine it - just as our existence before our human lives began are beyond our imagination too.

Heaven is more like a state of mind or a concept than a 'place'... it's synonymous with 'perfection' or 'bliss' - it implies having everything you want, whenever you want etc. and never having to do anything you don't want to do. A common belief about heaven (and a wholly understandable one) is that it is populated by the souls of (good) people who have died in the past, and hence you can be reunited with (some of) your loved ones etc.. I used to find this view quite comforting, until I thought about it a bit more and wondered how pleasant that would actually be. How "old" are people in heaven, and do they age? Do you only see people the way you want to see them (which would be consistent with the idea that your heaven is ideally suited to your needs), or do souls take on an ageless form, in which case, would you even recognise anyone? In a realm without physical form, what meaning would previous physical relatedness have anyway? One thing is for sure - many human expectations of heaven are based on previous experiences as a human, and assume that the experience of heaven will be similar. I'm not so sure.

 

[Famine]

Let me ask you this. Of what denomination was the original Church?

Jewish.

 

[Touring Mars]

I see no difference. The Scientifc Community disagree constantly about practically eveything.
There is some consensus on certain things, however take for instance,"Global Warming". Their all over the map.

There will always be competing theories within the scientific community, but that doesn't mean the same as "disagree constantly". By definition, a scientific theory is a broad explanation for a set of facts, and as such, the same set of facts can have more than one possible explanation. Theories gain or lose credibility as more pertinent data comes to light.

However, a scientific theory naturally takes science as the basis for its existence, and this simply isn't the case in many of the "debates" about supposed 'scientific controversies' in the public realm. As I have said in both the global warming thread and the evolution thread, I am highly skeptical of any criticism of the underlying science when that criticism comes from a person or group with a non-scientific agenda to push. You only need to look at who the critics are to understand their motivation for questioning the science - religious groups who attack evolution theory; oil companies and free market economic think tanks (such as the Heartland Institute) who discredit climate science etc..

The only valid way to challenge a scientific theory is to produce real scientific data of your own that refutes the theory, or steers the theory in a different direction. But criticising science simply because you don't like what it says is not valid. Yet the latter is far more effective in the public realm as actually engaging in proper science, hence it is true to say that the level of acceptance of a scientific theory in the public realm will only ever partially depend on what the actual science says.

 

[Duke]

I see no difference. The Scientifc Community disagree constantly about practically eveything. There is some consensus on certain things, however take for instance,"Global Warming". Their all over the map.

That's because there is not enough conclusive data about the global warming phenomenon yet (unlike other, longer-examined phenomena). There are multiple possible explanations that are supported by data to varying degrees. But once more data is gathered and more peer-reviewed analysis occurs, the consensus will grow and the understanding will be refined.

On the other hand, has religious understanding and consensus improved at all in recorded history? Not really.

That's the difference. With religion, it's all "he said, she said" and personal opinion. In science, it's improved understanding of improved data.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Jewish.

Good answer.

I meant A.D. or the original Christian Church.

That's because there is not enough conclusive data about the global warming phenomenon yet (unlike other, longer-examined phenomena). There are multiple possible explanations that are supported by data to varying degrees. But once more data is gathered and more peer-reviewed analysis occurs, the consensus will grow and the understanding will be refined.

On the other hand, has religious understanding and consensus improved at all in recorded history? Not really.

Just wondering how you would know since you don't believe in it.
To the contrary, I believe as explained that Christianity has.

That's the difference. With religion, it's all "he said, she said" and personal opinion. In science, it's improved understanding of improved data.

Its the actually the same with one exception. They operate in two different realms.
Science in the "Physical" and Religion in the "Spiritual".

 

[Danoff]

Its the actually the same with one exception. They operate in two different realms.

No, and to claim this demonstrates that you do not understand the nature of mysticism or science.

Religion and science are two fundamentally opposite philosophical approaches to the SAME problem.

 

[Joel]

However, a scientific theory naturally takes science as the basis for its existence, and this simply isn't the case in many of the "debates" about supposed 'scientific controversies' in the public realm. As I have said in both the global warming thread and the evolution thread, I am highly skeptical of any criticism of the underlying science when that criticism comes from a person or group with a non-scientific agenda to push. You only need to look at who the critics are to understand their motivation for questioning the science - religious groups who attack evolution theory; oil companies and free market economic think tanks (such as the Heartland Institute) who discredit climate science etc..

...Or Al Gore. But i'm gonna stop now. This isn't the global warming thread.

 

[cpp214]

...Or Al Gore. But i'm gonna stop now. This isn't the global warming thread.

Who can forget...ManBearPig?

 

[Duke]

Just wondering how you would know since you don't believe in it.

Because scientists aren't currently blowing each other up over differing interpretations of the same data. Nor did they typically torture and execute each other throughout history due to bitter hatred of opposing theorists. Harsh words may be exchanged upon occasion but no one has walked into a crowded particle physics symposium wearing a dynamite vest so they can take out as many of those infidel quantum theorists as possible.

On the other hand, religious people have been killing each other over who has the better invisible friend since the dawn of recorded history, and most likely before that too.

To the contrary, I believe as explained that Christianity has.

Has what? There is still bitter division between the varying flavors of Christianity. I'll grant that you lot are no longer burning each other at the stake much, but I've heard - with my own ears - a differing flavor of Christian tell my wife's Catholic parents that they are idol worshipers and should stop praying to false gods before it is too late.

Its the actually the same with one exception. They operate in two different realms. Science in the "Physical" and Religion in the "Spiritual".

This simply demonstrates precisely how little you understand about what science really is, and really doesn't illustrate any similarity at all between scientific understanding and religious opinion.

 

[orimarc]

Science in the "Physical" and Religion in the "Spiritual".

Ehem...what is this "Spiritual" you're talking about? You can prove it exists?
Or it's something "you have to believe" for it to exist?

 

[Skynyrd1977]

...
On the other hand, has religious understanding and consensus improved at all in recorded history? Not really.

That's the difference. With religion, it's all "he said, she said" and personal opinion. In science, it's improved understanding of improved data.

Absolutely false. Concerning mainstream Christianity what is there to "improve" on? The core values remain consistant...Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for us, rose again.

"he said, she said" ? "personal opinion" ? Come on Duke, seriously. The amount of information on the subject boggles the mind. Libraries fill the globe on the subject.