Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2012, 01:10 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(30-05-2012 01:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ST disagrees with me, but the determining factors in what is supposed to be taken literally are many. Context, history, and linguistic communication types are big factors


Going to have to disagree here. According to my understanding, the places that are for sure not literal are Genesis 1-3 as well as Revelation. As I continue to study, this may increase. As of right now, this is my understanding.
And your interpretation is not to be questioned?
Until you show, from God's word, why you believe what you believe...this is merely an expression of opinion.

Genesis 1-3 has an abundance of inaccuracies if viewed literally. The only reconciliation with the acknowledgment of these inaccuracies (plus not doing mental gymnastics) would be to conclude that Genesis 1-3 is not meant to be taken literally and that it is a story with truths.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 01:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 12:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  And your interpretation is not to be questioned?
Until you show, from God's word, why you believe what you believe...this is merely an expression of opinion.

Genesis 1-3 has an abundance of inaccuracies if viewed literally. The only reconciliation with the acknowledgment of these inaccuracies (plus not doing mental gymnastics) would be to conclude that Genesis 1-3 is not meant to be taken literally and that it is a story with truths.

An amazing statement. It is no wonder comments like "even Christians don't believe the bible anymore are made.
Good job, KC.
Again, show me where the innacuracies are, what it is that convinces you that it could not be literal.

And now, I really have to get going.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 01:44 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(28-05-2012 01:26 PM)Jedah Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 11:35 AM)KarlKennedy Wrote:  by the way buddy you said that if you convert to Islam, you have to cover yourself if you're a woman, pray five times a day, travel to Mecca, avoid certain foods, and active seek global jihad. but i say this is bullshit!!!!
after what I saw your post I swear you never know Islam!

[font=arial, sans-serif] + woman have to cover herself : give you a simple example ==> [/font]a man gives you t+travel to mecca==> who says that going to mecca is necessary? Islam's five pillars of faith said that this is not mandatory to go there.
+certain foods are full of diseases like pig flesh it cause of cancer, you can check that!!! Scientists have confirmed that..! I dont think that any one of us wants to be infected with cancer Wink))
+ we pray five time: before any pray we have to clean ourselves before 5 prayers so we clean ourselves 5 times in the day.
we dont have to go to jihad as you post!!! this is bullshit
peace Wink


1. "+ woman have to cover herself : give you a simple example ==> a man gives you t
Do you know what "false analogy" is?



2. "+certain foods are full of diseases like pig flesh it cause of cancer, you can check that!!! Scientists have confirmed that..! I dont think that any one of us wants to be infected with cancer Wink)) "

I dont know what kind of scientists get this result, but I do know that there are many other stuffs will get you cancer much easier than eating pork every day (like I do for 30 years).


The method you used for defending these ideas is not much different from Christian's pattern.
[font=arial, sans-serif]false analogy? where the false point exist? explain please i don't understand you![/font]

It is estimated that some scholars of human life on Earth millions of
Years, and some of about 30 million years. Man was in its infancy at this
Naked planet, has tried to cover his body leaves the trees, and over time and with the development of civilization
Humanity, mankind began to cover his body, nothing is something. Cover and the body is the most recent (historically)
Compared Baery which dates back to millions of years, and was covering the body by wearing clothes
Line with the urbanization and the human perception of the impact of his body (especially the female body) and not vice versa.

The question here is: Who is the most reactionary? Is it which dates back to 1400 years, or who
Up to 30 million years? I think that goes back millions of years or to be closer
Than it is at the time (from the nudity of the body) is the most reactionary. This, if we consider that
The meter is the right time, and used according to many critics of the "reactionary" Muslims, or
More precisely, reactionary fundamentalists who return to the original debt.
if the measure is the extent of freedom, if we came back to the pre-Islam, we will find that the daughters of masters
Arabs, wearing clothes cover up their bodies considerably when compared to women's clothing slain
Employed in the sex trade, Valochriat Be need to highlight the attractions: their bodies, for a reason, a
That those bodies brought to the goods they need to promote, and attract customers.The girls
Gentlemen Vogesadehn not available for sale, and therefore it is unwise to view, as they should
Eetmazn for slaves until they know all of the free.
and stripping the flesh in order to offer to trade him, still exist in modern times. It can be seen in Turkey and in countries
Bank counters and shelves commercial with naked women expose their bodies to attract customers who wish to enjoy
For money. In fact, women who work in those stores, does not have freedom
To cover her body during work hours, which means that their freedom be restricted during this period. When the
Come a time when lifting the restriction on their freedom, they go back to wearing her clothes again, and cover-up
Her body again.
so stripping the flesh or reveal parts of it are not expressive of freedom and civilization and progress necessarily, cover the body is not a restriction of freedom as portrayed by some. And trade of "white slavery" in our time This is yet another - more modern and clear - that when restricting the freedom of women actually, they are more prone to erosion, and the first thing is to violate the sanctity of her body and her right to
Maintain it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:02 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Ha! I am hoist by the petard of my occasional use of shortened sentences. By Sabbath = 10 commandment law I mean it is one of the ten commandments.

However, there is clear precedent for working on a Saturday even by JC himself...

Here's where the problem lies:
Original law:
Thou shaltest not workest on the Sabbath. Full stop. No excuses. If you do, thou shaltest be stoned, for the sake of your immortal soul.
PS: This law is eternal. BTW.

And now JC says "oh no, we can laugh all that off, PS eternal doesn't mean literally, and you can work if it's absolutely necessary"... My issue is that you had a nice succinct clear law and suddenly you tell me, "oh well, now but that is subject to interpretation". You claimed a few posts back that 99% of the bible is clear and easy to interpret. My question is intended not to challenge your interpretation of the bible or anything, but merely to show that even as simple a concept as "no work on Saturday" suddenly seems to take on a cosmic significance. So I'd say you have to reverse that statement: 99% of the bible is open to multiple interpretations, including things that seems as clear cut as disliking gay people, and 1% I don't have an issue with, mainly sentences such as "and then nothing happened for a bit". Oh yeah, and Ecclesiastes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:22 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 01:09 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I still don't get it. Your quote has a typo but my original post seems devoid of any typos. This is a mystery indeed. All praise the edit function.

Yeah, I just noted my own typo...lol.

Yours was this:

Quote:You are correct god sir.

Sheesh, how sad is that...explaining your own humor.

Hope that helps clear it up.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:48 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 01:04 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 12:58 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  What are these "several" things? Sabbath in both Hebrew and Greek refer to the Sabbath day as listed in the Ten Commandments.

What else can "Sabbath" mean?

Hebrew occurrences

Greek occurrences

Excellent question, start here...




Hebrews 4:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.




...for example.

Now, I will just suggest that you look at this before responding too quickly. Just as you mistakenly designated the content of Matthew 26:28 as "simply meaning covenant," without regard to the topic of discussion, I urge you not to make the same mistake here.

No, I didn't.

I just asserted that the word "new" wasn't in the language.

Anyway, based on the context and what is said in Hebrews 3 and 4, the author is saying that we can take rest in the Lord like He took rest on the Sabbath (as defined by the Ten Commandments).

The author is not giving a new definition to "Sabbath" and it doesn't mean anything differently. It's a simple metaphor. We can rest in the God like He rested on the Sabbath.

You're make things more complicated than they are.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:50 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 01:18 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 01:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Genesis 1-3 has an abundance of inaccuracies if viewed literally. The only reconciliation with the acknowledgment of these inaccuracies (plus not doing mental gymnastics) would be to conclude that Genesis 1-3 is not meant to be taken literally and that it is a story with truths.

An amazing statement. It is no wonder comments like "even Christians don't believe the bible anymore are made.
Good job, KC.
Again, show me where the innacuracies are, what it is that convinces you that it could not be literal.

And now, I really have to get going.

Does someone else want to point them out, or do I really have to?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 02:56 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Fundamentalist islamics are closer to the original islamics and therefor more accurate in their faith?

Sorry Lilith, I missed this in my haste to try to get to work today (which I have at this late time given up on).

Actually, I was referring to extremists, and yes, they are closer to the way in which Islam spread than those that seek to sell Islam as a religion of peace.


(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You seem to be missing out in the fact that your life is almost definitely not that of the original christians.

It is funny how the word facts is thrown around here.

It usually rides the tails of a misrepresentation of the antagonist, such as we see abopve. This kind of mistake would be less frequent if the simple practice of a direct quote were given, such as:

Quote:I would suggest the beginnings of Islam more closely resemble the extremists than those that have westernized or, watered down their religion to make it more palatable to the world around them.


Nothing about fundamentalism is referred to by me. Both "extremes" could call themselves fundamental.


(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Plenty of things have changed and rules are no longer followed.

Easy for you to say. Concerning Islam, talk to an exremist about that. I am pretty sure he would disagree with you.

In fact, ask a moderate as well. And I don't mean a nominal muslim, but one that actually believes in God and adheres to the teachings of his faith.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I am pretty definite that if you were to suggest you're a christian to one of the earlier ones they'd ask where you got that idea.

Well, this means you consider yourself to know and understand biblical doctrine. Be glad to talk to you about that.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  All current forms of christianity are excessively different than the original sects that came about during it's conception.

So then Christianity has disappeared from the face of the earth.

This is news indeed.

Concerning Christian Doctrine, according to scripture, either one is a Christian, or isn't. Christ said He was THE WAY, not one of many. This includes His teaching, as well as the teaching given through His Apostles and those closely associated with the Apostles.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Let's admit that you're yet again begging the no true scotsman fallacy (which you understand now right?).

If that is how you wish to view it, that is okay.

I will admit I did not look at the link, though I get the gist, I think.

So if I say that people that do not either know or adhere to that which is taught in scripture, especially, in the context of this discussion, Christian Doctrine, that it is highly unlikely that they are Christians...this is silly?

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Faith is much more a matter of personal interpretation than adherance to scripture.

That may be true, but what has that to do with Christianity itself?

Christianity involves growth, so the level of adherence to scripture will depend upon that growth.

Understand?

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Religions do change and acording to their followers that does not diminish their importance.

Then explain the general consensus among Christians, in all of their vast differences upon certain doctrine, that Mormons and JWs are in fact...a cult.

And while many of the heresies those groups teach did not originate with them, their doctrine is rejected, and their change was not considered to reflect upon Christianity or Christian Doctrine. It is viewed as a departure from sound doctrine. Not an acceptable change.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Your god's message has been changed countless times and you've accepted plenty of huge fundamental changes.

Apparently you have me confused with someone who belongs to a group like those just mentioned.

However, should you wish to discuss the immutability of God, and the means by which you arrived at that conclusion, I will be happy to oblige.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  They were made before you were introduced, or they were introduced while you were in the faith and you made the conversion to accepting this difference.

So saith the mighty historians, right?

I will suggest to you that not only has Christian Doctrine not changed, but the minute that Christian Doctrine does change...it is no longer Christian Doctrine.

Understand? So I ask again, are you implying that true Christianity has disappeared from the face of the earth? And you can answer from an objective view, I am not trying to trap you...I know you are an unbeliever.

Just pretend we are talking about Star Wars.

(31-05-2012 01:08 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Scripture is the most malleable part of the religions of the books primarily due to the ability to interpret it in so many radically diverse ways.

And just as you are forced to admit that when it is interpreted in multiple ways, we know that at the very least some of those interpretations are in error.

And while you may not embrace the notion that at least one of those interpretations is valid, you can at least admit that if some are in error, or all, if Christianity has indeed disappeared (which would be the logical conclusion if in fact there is no-one that adheres to the teaching anymore as originally taught)...then those that are called Christian by some are not in fact Christians.

Now while scripture has, due to it's progressive nature concerning knowledge of redemption, a dual nature, meaning there are certain prophecies that may apply to both the contemporary and the future fulfillments, I am one that believes that there is only one right interpretation of any given passage.

When scripture is compared in light of the entirety of scripture, one can see the harmony of the will of God for man, rather than be confused by thinking that God has changed what He has eternally known He would do.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
Here... found this in an old post I made.

And, this is just a small part.















For people who support a 100% literally inerrant Bible, some go-to places are Genesis 1 and 2.

Quote:Genesis 1

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after [ah]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after [ai]their kind, and the cattle after [aj]their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

So, in short, in Genesis 1 it says God created and sprouted plants, and then created animals, and then created man and woman.

Take a look at Genesis 2:

Quote: 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [c]cultivate the ground. 6 But a [d]mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole [e]surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f]being

18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper [s]suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

In Genesis 2 it states that nothing has sprouted yet, that man was created before animals, and that woman was created last.

A common argument is that Genesis 2 is an account within an account and that it was written in pluperfect tense (which it was); however, that doesn't explain the chronology of the creations; likewise, if any argument like this arises from a Bible literalist, you can always counter with, "So, you think the Bible isn't 100% literal?"

Truthfully, there isn't a literalist that can defend this position as you have to bend "literal" in order to make it fit.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
31-05-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: Why Christianity is the most popular religion
(31-05-2012 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 01:04 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Excellent question, start here...




Hebrews 4:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.




...for example.

Now, I will just suggest that you look at this before responding too quickly. Just as you mistakenly designated the content of Matthew 26:28 as "simply meaning covenant," without regard to the topic of discussion, I urge you not to make the same mistake here.

No, I didn't.

Yes...you did.

lol

In fact, you do it again. Consider:


(31-05-2012 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I just asserted that the word "new" wasn't in the language.

Now no-one, I mean no-one, would say with a straight face...that the word kainos is not in the language.

lol

Want to stick with that assertion?

I am having a bit of fun with you KC, though I know I really should not, but you have several times now tried to correct me for my ignorance, and yet have failed to even manage to keep up with the topic at hand.

Now, I will ask you again: is the statement concerning the cup referenced by Christ and other writers...speaking about the same thing? Or, if this is more understandable, is the stuff that is talked about the same stuff in all four passages I gave?

(31-05-2012 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, based on the context and what is said in Hebrews 3 and 4, the author is saying that we can take rest in the Lord like He took rest on the Sabbath (as defined by the Ten Commandments).

Better check your commentaries again, this time, look for someone that has actually studied Hebrews.

A few suggestion might be John MacArthur, or maybe Harry Ironside.

Now something to consider while you do that is that the Rest promised to Israel is indeed found in Christ, and how that relates to the New Covenant.

And by the way...the Ten Commandments do not define the Sabbath, lol.

Think about that statement...okay?

(31-05-2012 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The author is not giving a new definition to "Sabbath" and it doesn't mean anything differently. It's a simple metaphor. We can rest in the God like He rested on the Sabbath.

So you are saying that there is promised a sabbath that Israel has already been commanded, under the First Covenant...to observe?

And are ytou saying that there is but one definition for sabbath, and that it is metaphor?

lol

(31-05-2012 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  You're make things more complicated than they are.

Actually, I am just addressing the over-simplification that is attempted here.

(31-05-2012 02:50 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-05-2012 01:18 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  An amazing statement. It is no wonder comments like "even Christians don't believe the bible anymore are made.
Good job, KC.
Again, show me where the innacuracies are, what it is that convinces you that it could not be literal.

And now, I really have to get going.

Does someone else want to point them out, or do I really have to?

Are you going to appeal to atheists for support?

Incredible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: