Zone1 If we worship One God...

[TNHarley]

This has nothing to do with church. It has to do with logic.

If you practice golf everyday but you are practicing poor mechanics, then rather than practicing everyday helping you, it is in reality hurting you.

There is nothing logical about this.

 

[ESay]

I do understand what your are saying. The distinction I am trying for would be like comparing college students who would start in on, My major is better than your major...Your major is not going to get you anywhere..... All are trying to further their education.

If two students want to be educated people, they both should use contemporary books and methods, not only the ones that were issued say in the 19th century.

The sooner you get that some far outdated concepts are actually pushing away more people than they could attract, the better.

 

[Meriweather]

So, to take it a step further, the Trinity has always existed?

To take it a step further, God has always existed. When we humans have always tried to communicate with each other what we perceive about God. Imagine two ants trying to describe humans to each other.

God is Creator. God is Word. God is Spirit.

Humans create. Humans share words. Humans have spirit. Now think of a single being who is these same qualities that exist in a much more vibrant and extensive way than they do in humans. We humans say, "I will be with you in spirit" but God's spirit is already there. The same with His Word and His creation. Best I can do because I am only human.

 

[there4eyeM]

I'm not really sure he was telling us to be cannibals. I get that some might see it that way though.

Taking a post and responding to your own question instead is disingenuous to say the least, "Ding" and "Meri".

 

[there4eyeM]

'We' are the people here who worship one God. That would include Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Then, your definition of "same" is somewhat loose.

 

[Meriweather]

The sooner you get that some far outdated concepts are actually pushing away more people than they could attract, the better.

What non-believers don't take into consideration is people do have experiences of God. It has always been a part of human existence. Another part of human existence has been those who have held no belief. Our stories are entirely different.

 

[there4eyeM]

What non-believers don't take into consideration is people do have experiences of God. It has always been a part of human existence. Another part of human existence has been those who have held no belief. Our stories are entirely different.

Have you ever taken into consideration that those not involved in a religion see those professing experience of "god" as having an active imagination?
In any case, one's direct experience is not something another person is even capable of validating.
Even more importantly, one's direct experience of deity would be fulfilling enough that what others thought would make little difference.
I have had experiences that I do not expect others to be able to believe, and that I myself, in retrospect, have to wonder about at times. This is simply how things are, and being upset about it, trying to convince others, is a psychological problem.

 

[cnm]

To take it a step further, God has always existed. When we humans have always tried to communicate with each other what we perceive about God.

And the Christian perception is a Trinity as far as I can make out through the ambiguities. Is a Trinity a fair assessment of Christian perception?

 

[Meriweather]

Then, your definition of "same" is somewhat loose.

It is broadly speaking, yes.

 

[Meriweather]

Have you ever taken into consideration that those not involved in a religion see those professing experience of "god" as having an active imagination?

Sure.

In any case, one's direct experience is not something another person is even capable of validating.
Even more importantly, one's direct experience of deity would be fulfilling enough that what others thought would make little difference.

Very true.

I have had experiences that I do not expect others to be able to believe, and that I myself, in retrospect, have to wonder about at times. This is simply how things are, and being upset about it, trying to convince others, is a psychological problem.

Who cares about convincing others? It is merely a testimony, one of many people hear. Then everyone makes up their own mind.

 

[Meriweather]

And the Christian perception is a Trinity as far as I can make out through the ambiguities. Is a Trinity a fair assessment of Christian perception?

Yes, that is a fair assessment.

 

[ding]

Taking a post and responding to your own question instead is disingenuous to say the least, "Ding" and "Meri".

You lost me there. I was questioning the question. Which is what one does when the premise of the question is false.

 

[ding]

There is nothing logical about this.

Because you don't want there to be, not because it's not. You put God on trial daily and you can't see the irony of God putting himself on trial? Do you think this is somehow unrelated? Because until you acknowledge this connection, it's not going to make sense to you. But I get that you are afraid to acknowledge it even for the sake of argument.

There's nothing preventing you from saying, "for the sake of argument let's assume it is related, what next?" Your only risk is your argument disappearing in a puff of logic. But since you don't believe that's a risk, you shouldn't fear walking through the logic. But I am betting you will anyway, all the while claiming there is no logic as you avoid the discussion on the logic.

 

[ESay]

What non-believers don't take into consideration is people do have experiences of God. It has always been a part of human existence. Another part of human existence has been those who have held no belief. Our stories are entirely different.

From my perception, the vast majority of 'non-believers' is actually agnostics. They believe in the Higher Force, but refuse to accept some dogmas, rituals, hierarchy and other things the religions have to offer. Because some of these things really look silly and meaningless now.

Do the agnostics have the faith? I think they do. Their moral values are virtually the same as those of 'believers'. And the ways should be found to unite various people based on moral values rather than dogmas and outward signs.

 

[Meriweather]

From my perception, the vast majority of 'non-believers' is actually agnostics. They believe in the Higher Force, but refuse to accept some dogmas, rituals, hierarchy and other things the religions have to offer. Because some of these things really look silly and meaningless now.

I understand. Bringing a fir tree into one's home and decorating it can look pretty silly as well...or drinking green beer on March 17. Traditions hold meanings when one is raised in them. When one forgets the meanings, then not so much.

Do the agnostics have the faith? I think they do. Their moral values are virtually the same as those of 'believers'. And the ways should be found to unite various people based on moral values rather than dogmas and outward signs.

I do agree with most of this. The Bible is not well taught, or for that matter not well studied. It appears the modern Western world is totally befuddled by it. They read it and conclude God is a cruel villain. They don't get it, and have no clue what scripture is teaching us. It is an amazing story when properly understood.

 

[BreezeWood]

They don't get it, and have no clue what scripture is teaching us. It is an amazing story when properly understood.

- is that maga, the supporting cast for the 4th century christian bible ...

and what jesus taught, liberation theology, self determination the same as the heavens instructions to a&e and their journey for remission to the everlasting - as equals among those already there - no where found in any of the desert bibles.

most definitely, not christianity - the religion of servitude and denial.

 

[ninja007]

The only path is through Jesus.

I knew and know many Godly Catholics. Their understanding and doctrine may be incorrect but I don't believe our loving merciful God is going to condemn good, well-meaning, but mistaken people to the Lake of Fire.

Do you?

catholic beliefs and teaching do not line up with scripture- they do not trust in
Jesus' finished work and free gift. thats def. hell worthy.

 

[ninja007]

No, I do understand it. Its still disgusting. He could have come up with some better ritual to remember him.
Pretending to eat his flesh and drink his blood...

the rcc has many false teachings, yes.

 

[ninja007]

ONE VERSE REFUTATION OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION EUCHARIST



The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.



"And when Jesus had taken a cup and given thanks (Catholic transubstantiation happens here), He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood (Orthodox transubstantiation happens here) of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (Jesus still called it juice) from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”" (Matthew 26:27–29)

• 1. Transubstantiation teaches the bread the juice for the Eucharist miraculously changes into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.
• 2. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches admit transubstantiation is NOT taught I the Bible, but is based upon human tradition which has its origin with the apostles themselves.
• 3. Orthodox say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the “prayer of thanksgiving” before the proclamation “this is my body”.
• 4. Catholics say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the proclamation "this is my body" after the prayer.

ONE VERSE REFUTATION #1: If you carefully read Mt 26:27-29 above, you will notice that after Jesus “gave thanks” and proclaimed “this is my blood”, Jesus himself refutes both RC and Orthodox because he then afterwards called it “fruit of the vine” not blood. This utterly collapses and refutes, with no chance for rebuttal of any kind, the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.



BONUS REFUTION #2: The fact that Orthodox and Catholic BOTH CLAIM their ritual is direct apostolic authority, example and tradition, BUT they practice TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, proves transubstantiation is a human false doctrine invented in the 4th century AD.

One verse refution of Transubstantiation

 

[ESay]

I understand. Bringing a fir tree into one's home and decorating it can look pretty silly as well...or drinking green beer on March 17. Traditions hold meanings when one is raised in them. When one forgets the meanings, then not so much

And I am more than okay with that. As well as when someone decides to follow some religious traditions too.

I do agree with most of this. The Bible is not well taught, or for that matter not well studied. It appears the modern Western world is totally befuddled by it. They read it and conclude God is a cruel villain. They don't get it, and have no clue what scripture is teaching us. It is an amazing story when properly understood

The process would be far smoother if people being eager to promote their scripture conceded to the obvious - that 'the sacred texts' were written by people for other people of respective cultures, mindset and traditions. That these people needed a god or gods who can listen to them, speak with them, protect them, crush their enemies, punish the evil etc.

And it is long overdue to scrap that ancient perception and modernize it. To leave the myths and legends in their proper place as they are and abandon senseless ceremonies and hierarchy, and concentrate on what the true faith is about - morality and improvement of yourself and the society.