Those who start their own church....

[onel0126]

http://www.stpeterslist.com/6272/th...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[b23hqb]

If a "somebody" does not start a new church, who does? Biblically, any believer can go out, evangelize, and plant the seeds or start a new assembly/meeting/gathering.

What is the problem with that, except to catholics.

One does not have to trust the new meeting, or join them. Your choice.

But until one checks the new church out, and understands where they are coming from, how would you ever know if you would trust it or not?

 

[hotcoffee]

If a "somebody" does not start a new church, who does? Biblically, any believer can go out, evangelize, and plant the seeds or start a new assembly/meeting/gathering.

What is the problem with that, except to catholics.

One does not have to trust the new meeting, or join them. Your choice.

But until one checks the new church out, and understands where they are coming from, how would you ever know if you would trust it or not?

That's the Spirit!

 

[onel0126]

If a "somebody" does not start a new church, who does? Biblically, any believer can go out, evangelize, and plant the seeds or start a new assembly/meeting/gathering. What is the problem with that, except to catholics. One does not have to trust the new meeting, or join them. Your choice. But until one checks the new church out, and understands where they are coming from, how would you ever know if you would trust it or not?

Answer me one question. Do you think that the current number of Protestant denominations is what Christ had in mind?

Second, please don't tell me that Protestants all agree on your infamous core beliefs that you still never answered from the other day as to who established those core beliefs and where they are mentioned in scripture.

 

[Bird Dog]

If a "somebody" does not start a new church, who does? Biblically, any believer can go out, evangelize, and plant the seeds or start a new assembly/meeting/gathering.

What is the problem with that, except to catholics.

One does not have to trust the new meeting, or join them. Your choice.

But until one checks the new church out, and understands where they are coming from, how would you ever know if you would trust it or not?

Which one is right.
They're thousands of them, literally hundreds in Southern Maryland alone. Which one preaches the correct Gospels, the correct interpretation of the Bible, the way to salvation,

I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the thousands of born again, out of the gutter, now sinners, now saved, we are the right way churches.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Which one is right.
They're thousands of them, literally hundreds in Southern Maryland alone. Which one preaches the correct Gospels, the correct interpretation of the Bible, the way to salvation,

I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the thousands of born again, out of the gutter, now sinners, now saved, we are the right way churches.

"Which one is right?" is a question that can be asked of any sect of Christianity, including Catholicism. The Mormons are just as convinced that they have the correct version of Christianity as any Catholic is convinced of the correctness of their version. You may feel strongly that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only Church, and the Catholic version is the one true version of Christianity. That's fine, but you may want to expound on why you think this really matters when one is talking about 'faith, as the originator of the thread should as well.

The correct answer to "Which one is right?" is NONE. No version of Christianity, or version of any Religion of the world for that matter, has irrefutable evidence that their Religion, or version of their Religion, is the correct one. 'Beliefs' will always have many versions as 'beliefs' require no evidence - only faith. That is obviously why there are so many religions and sects of religions in the world.

 

[Merlin99]

"Which one is right?" is a question that can be asked of any sect of Christianity, including Catholicism. The Mormons are just as convinced that they have the correct version of Christianity as any Catholic is convinced of the correctness of their version. You may feel strongly that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only Church, and the Catholic version is the one true version of Christianity. That's fine, but you may want to expound on why you think this really matters when one is talking about 'faith, as the originator of the thread should as well.

The correct answer to "Which one is right?" is NONE. No version of Christianity, or version of any Religion of the world for that matter, has irrefutable evidence that their Religion, or version of their Religion, is the correct one. 'Beliefs' will always have many versions as 'beliefs' require no evidence - only faith. That is obviously why there are so many religions and sects of religions in the world.

I think you went the wrong way on this one, The correct answer to "Which one is right? Is ALL. Your faith tells you what is true, since your faith is in reality your opinion it is axiomatically true (to you).

 

[Dondi]

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

I think we need to stop quibbling with each other and be thankful that God allows some latitude toward those who don't completely agree with us.

 

[Zguy28]

Answer me one question. Do you think that the current number of Protestant denominations is what Christ had in mind?

I don't know the answer to that specifically, nor do you. Its kind of like the same spirit that would ask today "do you think paying for papal indulgences is what Jesus had in mind?" However, what we all know Jesus had in mind was thus: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Second, please don't tell me that Protestants all agree on your infamous core beliefs that you still never answered from the other day as to who established those core beliefs and where they are mentioned in scripture.

You said answer only one, sorry.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I think you went the wrong way on this one, The correct answer to "Which one is right? Is ALL. Your faith tells you what is true, since your faith is in reality your opinion it is axiomatically true (to you).

Ok, I could see how you could view it that way when framing it from the singular view-point of any one individual. But, I would just say that in order to formulate that "opinion that is axiomatically true to you" requires self delusion and self-brainwashing when it comes to believing in anything 'faith-based'.

You can fool yourself into thinking that you are actually using your intellect, but your not. The vast majority of people are indoctrinated into the theology they were born into. The 'brain-washing' begins at a very early age. Those that aren't just end up self-deluding themselves with a religion to their liking because it seems to satisfy for them some psychological need(s).

 

[hotcoffee]

Ok, I could see how you could view it that way when framing it from the singular view-point of any one individual. But, I would just say that in order to formulate that "opinion that is axiomatically true to you" requires self delusion and self-brainwashing when it comes to believing in anything 'faith-based'.

You can fool yourself into thinking that you are actually using your intellect, but your not. The vast majority of people are indoctrinated into the theology they were born into. The 'brain-washing' begins at a very early age. Those that aren't just end up self-deluding themselves with a religion to their liking because it seems to satisfy for them some psychological need(s).

Brain washing is a term I really dislike. I prefer to think of it as teaching.... as instructed by our Lord.

 

[hotcoffee]

I think we need to stop quibbling with each other and be thankful that God allows some latitude toward those who don't completely agree with us.

Thanks... well said.

 

[Merlin99]

Ok, I could see how you could view it that way when framing it from the singular view-point of any one individual. But, I would just say that in order to formulate that "opinion that is axiomatically true to you" requires self delusion and self-brainwashing when it comes to believing in anything 'faith-based'.

You can fool yourself into thinking that you are actually using your intellect, but your not. The vast majority of people are indoctrinated into the theology they were born into. The 'brain-washing' begins at a very early age. Those that aren't just end up self-deluding themselves with a religion to their liking because it seems to satisfy for them some psychological need(s).

Just as you can be fooling yourself that you are using your intellect, but you're not. Just because it started at an early age, doesn't mean it's not correct.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Just as you can be fooling yourself that you are using your intellect, but you're not. Just because it started at an early age, doesn't mean it's not correct.

Intellect, used properly, means reasoning and understanding objectively. Any ‘belief’ in any ‘faith’, is for all intents and purposes, inconsistent with rational and critical thought. A quick example…Catholics must believe they are consuming the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ when participating in the Eucharist. Is this possible?

Regarding your quote, “Just because it starts at an early age doesn’t mean it is not correct.” …It’s highly likely that you will adopt the predominate religion of your birth country and keep that as your ‘true’ religion throughout your life. But they can’t all be “right”.

Christianity believes there is only one true religion, one true savior, and if you don’t accept him, you will suffer Hell. So just consider for a moment, the approximately 1 Billion persons in India that have adopted Hinduism as their one true religion. As polytheists, they pray to many Gods. Per the doctrine of Christianity, they will endure eternal torture in fire. Why? Because they had the bad luck of being born into the wrong theology.

 

[Merlin99]

Intellect, used properly, means reasoning and understanding objectively. Any ‘belief’ in any ‘faith’, is for all intents and purposes, inconsistent with rational and critical thought. A quick example…Catholics must believe they are consuming the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ when participating in the Eucharist. Is this possible?

Regarding your quote, “Just because it starts at an early age doesn’t mean it is not correct.” …It’s highly likely that you will adopt the predominate religion of your birth country and keep that as your ‘true’ religion throughout your life. But they can’t all be “right”.

Christianity believes there is only one true religion, one true savior, and if you don’t accept him, you will suffer Hell. So just consider for a moment, the approximately 1 Billion persons in India that have adopted Hinduism as their one true religion. As polytheists, they pray to many Gods. Per the doctrine of Christianity, they will endure eternal torture in fire. Why? Because they had the bad luck of being born into the wrong theology.

In a universe made up of an infinite number of dimensions, this is not necessarily true.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

In a universe made up of an infinite number of dimensions, this is not necessarily true.

Are your trying to say that a 'multiverse' would obviate variations in religious dogma of all the religions of the world? I never know what a people will say next in these arguments! Scriptures teach that there is a multiverse? That's a new one on me.

The problem with your postulation is that you cannot show where God exists in our current universe, never mind a multiverse. The theory of a multiverse, if it is eventually proved, will be proved by science, not religion. And, will have nothing to do with whether a God or Gods exist simultaneously.

Sorry to let your down, but Science and religion are not compatible. Religions lay claims that the entire truth of everything is already known via the "perfect word of the creator of the universe", i.e. the Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims. Science does not claim that all truths are already known and establishes truths by evidence, observation, testing, and the scientific method. If a theory is eventually proven false, it will be thrown out. The Bible, if Christians don't try to rationalize their way out, has to be taken as God's Perfect Word - all of it. That's why we have Christian fundamentalists believing the earth is 6000 years old an the story of Noah and the Ark is true.

 

[Merlin99]

Are your trying to say that a 'multiverse' would obviate variations in religious dogma of all the religions of the world? I never know what a people will say next in these arguments! Scriptures teach that there is a multiverse? That's a new one on me.
I'm saying no such thing, I said an infinite number of universes would eliminate the need for an all or nothing view of religion. It would make it possible for each and every religion to simultaneously be correct.

The problem with your postulation is that you cannot show where God exists in our current universe, never mind a multiverse. here we have the twin problem that while I can't prove God exists, you also can't prove that he doesn't.The theory of a multiverse, if it is eventually proved, will be proved by science, not religion. And, will have nothing to do with whether a God or Gods exist simultaneously. (I'm hoping that your intellectualism shows you that you're stating an opinion as a fact here)

Sorry to let your down, but Science and religion are not compatible.I'm not going to agree with this just due to the sheer number of very religious scientist. If some of the most learned men in science haven't an issue with religion, why should I? Religions lay claims that the entire truth of everything is already known via the "perfect word of the creator of the universe", i.e. the Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims. Science does not claim that all truths are already known and establishes truths by evidence, observation, testing, and the scientific method. If a theory is eventually proven false, it will be thrown out. The Bible, if Christians don't try to rationalize their way out, has to be taken as God's Perfect Word - all of it. That's why we have Christian fundamentalists believing the earth is 6000 years old an the story of Noah and the Ark is true.

...

 

[ProximaCentauri]

...

Yes you are right in saying that I can't prove that God does not exist, but I am not seeking to do that. I view the likelihood of a Supernatural as low, and the likelihood of a 'Personal God', i.e. one who answers prayers, performs miracles, etc., as very low.

And yes many Scientists do manage a belief in God, but 93% of scientists that are members of the National Academy of Scientists, do not.

 

[Zguy28]

Science does not claim that all truths are already known and establishes truths by evidence, observation, testing, and the scientific method. If a theory is eventually proven false, it will be thrown out.

If it is thrown out, then its not truth is it? Science seeks to explain what we observe via reproducibility. Science doesn't establish anything, let alone truth. Science is natural only, that's why it can't explain or reproduce God who is supernatural (hence the name). Its not that they are incompatible, rather religion and science serve different purposes.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

If it is thrown out, then its not truth is it? Science seeks to explain what we observe via reproducibility. Science doesn't establish anything, let alone truth. Science is natural only, that's why it can't explain or reproduce God who is supernatural (hence the name). Its not that they are incompatible, rather religion and science serve different purposes.

Yes, a theory thrown out was determined not to be 'truth' by the scientific method. But that's a big distinction between science and religion. Nothing in the Bible can be thrown out when it is proved a myth.

Your quote: "Science doesn't establish anything, let alone truth." is quite a quote. If you don't 'believe' that science establishes anything, better chuck your computer, don't visit the doctor, live without electric lights, etc. With this thinking, you would have been better off living in the dark ages, maybe say about the 12th century in Europe would have suited you better.