Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Note the poster didn't say "practice religion"; he said "go to church". YUUUGE difference.
We also know there is a huge difference between going to school and learning. Do you recommend students not go to school? If a student does go to school, but does not learn, who is at fault? The school? The teacher? Or, the student who chose not to learn?
So, no, there is not a huge difference. If people go to church and get nothing out of it, perhaps it is because they bring nothing with them, and they take nothing away. As we know, a body of water that brings nothing in and where nothing flows out becomes stagnant.
Uh, yes there is a YUUGE difference. Religion doesn't come from a church any more than education comes from a school. Those are institutions constructed to assembly-line a mental process. As such their results are basically superficial.
I learned stuff in school, much of which is forgotten and useless. I learned much more out of school none of which is useless. And the same goes for religion. An institution can be a resource, but ultimately the quest is personal.
As another post put it:
Mark Twain once said, "Don't let school get in the way of your education." In the same way, "Don't let Church get in the way of your coming to know God."
Go with that.
Q: Where did I get that quote?
A: I read it in a book.
Q: Where did I learn to read?
A: I learned in school.
Q: Was that quote in a book I read at school?
A: No.
The same is true with photography. I learned the basics of good photography at school. It didn't stop there. Same with church this morning. The lesson for the coming week was presented there. It's up to me whether it stops there or continues on.
So my question remains: If people are okay with throwing out Church, are they equally okay with throwing out school? Or, are both good beginnings?
They're both irrelevant to the quest. Again, either may be a good resource for that quest, or it may be a waste of time. And when it's involuntary it certainly leans to the latter.
You seem to want it both ways; the institution is essential/the institution is irrelevant. Pick one.
Are you talking about yourself again?..... I'm looking to go in the Bull Ring with someone regarding Christianity and their Religious beliefs.
So tell me, which of the following do you believe (and, if it's not listed, please specify)
1. Atheist
2. Agnostic
3. Believes in a Supreme Being, but not the God of the Bible
4. Believes in something, not necessarily a person, but a force
5. Believes there is no one thing or person that rules, but, more of a cosmic chain of events.
Again, there are many options, but, I'd like to hear what you believe, even if you aren't sure or don't care.
Thanks,
I'm a Baptist....believe in God and His Son Jesus. I don't understand how so many Christians have gotten the basic Christian beliefs all twisted up and invented some new rules of their own. I don't believe this world came about by "chance" and I respect those that don't believe in God....that is their choice.
You would not be a good "Bull Ring" opponent for me because I basically believe the same thing. (Baptist also, but, raised Lutheran). I do understand why people believe differently, I just wish people could or were able to be more open minded to all possibilities. Seems that many people cling to their beliefs and only research additional proof to substantiate their beliefs, rather than looking at all possibilities......
I agree that many people cling to their beliefs and only research additional proof to substantiate their beliefs....that is why there are so many Christians that have weird beliefs about certain things that they can only back up by their "own" interpretation of the Bible. They make up crap (that is not true) and pass it along as fact. I received an e-mail from a Christian friend claiming that "prayer" had been banned from public schools with a video showing some teenagers holding up signs that repeated that notion. I explained to her that it was not true and why it was wrong in so many levels to push that thought. She didn't respond, but I'm sure that didn't keep her from sending it to others! I know where this stems from.....and wonder why some have to use religion to further their political agenda and fool those that are not as politically minded into believing such crap.
Note the poster didn't say "practice religion"; he said "go to church". YUUUGE difference.
We also know there is a huge difference between going to school and learning. Do you recommend students not go to school? If a student does go to school, but does not learn, who is at fault? The school? The teacher? Or, the student who chose not to learn?
So, no, there is not a huge difference. If people go to church and get nothing out of it, perhaps it is because they bring nothing with them, and they take nothing away. As we know, a body of water that brings nothing in and where nothing flows out becomes stagnant.
Uh, yes there is a YUUGE difference. Religion doesn't come from a church any more than education comes from a school. Those are institutions constructed to assembly-line a mental process. As such their results are basically superficial.
I learned stuff in school, much of which is forgotten and useless. I learned much more out of school none of which is useless. And the same goes for religion. An institution can be a resource, but ultimately the quest is personal.
As another post put it:
Mark Twain once said, "Don't let school get in the way of your education." In the same way, "Don't let Church get in the way of your coming to know God."
Go with that.
Q: Where did I get that quote?
A: I read it in a book.
Q: Where did I learn to read?
A: I learned in school.
Q: Was that quote in a book I read at school?
A: No.
The same is true with photography. I learned the basics of good photography at school. It didn't stop there. Same with church this morning. The lesson for the coming week was presented there. It's up to me whether it stops there or continues on.
So my question remains: If people are okay with throwing out Church, are they equally okay with throwing out school? Or, are both good beginnings?
Is Buddha a God to you? Or a "God" at all?I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.
Because some "religious" people have turned religion into what it is not supposed to be, many are repulsed by it and many have been turned away from it. Religion is not the thing to be worshipped but rather more like an instruction book, or map, so to speak, that is supposed to get you to where you need to be with God. Christianity has many different "faiths" - such as Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc., and they differ in the the way they teach worship of God, but the gist of that faith is all the same.....Jesus, is the Son of God and the Bible is the Word of God, meant to teach us about God and Jesus.
Without the "church" - people would not have a way of learning about God and Jesus. The same with school.....yes, you could learn a lot without school, but probably not as much and school makes it so much easier and faster, too. I don't agree that we don't need schools, and I don't agree that we don't need the Church....but you have to be careful what the church is teaching and check it out to make sure it doesn't contradict the Word of God, because we have far too many churches that have turned into political machines....pushing their agenda by preaching false information.
I believe that there is a God, but not necessarily the one from the Bible. I believe that the same God is the origin of all the religions in the world. You simply have to choose one to follow.
When you realize that what you been taught to believe about Jesus is a perversion based on Roman ignorance about Jewish thought, belief, and figurative literary expressions that conjures from the depths of hell a false image of an imaginary Jesus in the form of a substitute, counterfeit, sugar coated, supernatural, edible, triune, mangod that does not correspond to the teachings or life of any real living being ever in existence.
Only when you stop believing in and perpetuating a false image of Jesus with a false message of a false salvation will the clouds that have obscured the truth from your sight be removed so you can begin to see Christ face to face, as he actually was and is.
What I believe about Jesus comes from the Gospels and Letters in the New Testament. Which books do you believe are based on Roman ignorance?
What you believe about Jesus is regurgitated Church dogma that is based on Roman ignorance about the figurative nature of the fantastical stories that were intentionally written by Jews to preserve teaching from God openly in a way that would go over the heads of their superstitious Roman enemy who had just destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and their way of life while slaughtering and sending into exile and slavery hundreds of thousands of Jews...
What you believe about Jesus is superstitious archaic lore based on the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation of the gospels possible.
There is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands that one must worship and eat for spiritual life. The entire Bible clearly condemns such a vile and degrading practice that is an open rebellion against the divine commands and desecration of the teachings of Jesus, the actual Body of Christ.
That may not be what you believe, and you are entitled to that unbelief, but damn....
What you believe about Jesus is regurgitated Church dogma that is based on Roman ignorance about the figurative nature of the fantastical stories that were intentionally written by Jews to preserve teaching from God openly in a way that would go over the heads of their superstitious Roman enemy who had just destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple and their way of life while slaughtering and sending into exile and slavery hundreds of thousands of Jews...
What you believe about Jesus is superstitious archaic lore based on the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation of the gospels possible.
There is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands that one must worship and eat for spiritual life. The entire Bible clearly condemns such a vile and degrading practice that is an open rebellion against the divine commands and desecration of the teachings of Jesus, the actual Body of Christ.
That may not be what you believe, and you are entitled to that unbelief, but damn....
Respectfully, you did not answer my question. I asked: Which New Testament books are Roman superstition, propaganda, and ignorance?
The rest of your post, unfortunately, is speculation based on propaganda. It is so far from my experiences, studies, and why I believe as I do, that there is no common ground, at present, for us to stand.
I never answered your question because I never said that the gospels themselves were based on Roman misinterpretations.
Maybe I wasn't clear.
Your beliefs, Church dogma, are based on Roman misinterpretations of the Gospels.
Your entire belief system about a god made man made matzo made by human hands is a perversion of the stories in the gospels that were deliberately written in figurative language to obscure the truth and conceal the teachings of Jesus from Rome in a coded language that the superstitious and irrational could never grasp...
You may never have realized this but to Jesus, his disciples, his followers, and the authors of the Gospels, 'the nations' were the enemy.
"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations." Revelation 19:15
Would you like specifics examples about what is written, what the church claims it means, what was hidden, and how Church dogma is a perversion of the actual truth?
In the early days of Church, when Rome was persecuting these people, they called them cannibals because of what they taught and what they believed. This is documented.
Rome's belief on Christ before Jesus wasn't born. So I understand old Rome before England and U.S.A. come to the world's land.
American's are both Italian and Englishmen from begin's.
Precisely.
They were called cannibals because the Roman authorities failed to comprehend that the command of Jesus to 'eat my flesh' has literally nothing whatever to do with eating anything just like the many disciples who left Jesus after he said, unless you eat my flesh you can have no life in you, because they too took it literally and failed to comprehend the hidden meaning of the metaphorical analogy that he later explained to the remaining disciples in John 6:63. that his words, teaching from God about the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects of divine law, are what you must eat.
No matter how many eucharists there are in the world and however many devoted believers eat it daily they are not obeying the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.
You have been diverted by superstitious archaic lore and placed under a delusion to believe a lie.
Precisely.
They were called cannibals because the Roman authorities failed to comprehend that the command of Jesus to 'eat my flesh' has literally nothing whatever to do with eating anything just like the many disciples who left Jesus after he said, unless you eat my flesh you can have no life in you, because they too took it literally and failed to comprehend the hidden meaning of the metaphorical analogy that he later explained to the remaining disciples in John 6:63. that his words, teaching from God about the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects of divine law, are what you must eat.
No matter how many eucharists there are in the world and however many devoted believers eat it daily they are not obeying the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.
You have been diverted by superstitious archaic lore and placed under a delusion to believe a lie.
Actually, I have not.
I understand you cannot/will not believe because your understanding is from the Roman point of view.
I choose to remain with scripture, Apostolic teaching, and early Christian belief. To compare this with cannibalism simply illustrates how far removed one is from Apostolic teaching and scripture. Some people buy into the Roman thought of cannibalism. But to the rest of us, that is like someone saying, "Sun" and asking two people to describe what first comes into their minds. One person say thirst and death; the other says light and warmth.
In the same way, Jesus says, "This is my body," and some people say, "Cannibalism" and others say, "Nourishment--in a similar way to how a mother nourishes her baby, where cannibalism isn't even a factor."
