Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[n_huffhines]

Been a long time, Huff. I couldn't debate my way out of a paper sack. I think some key points were:

• God and Jesus are separate entities
• Only 144K are called to heaven
• Others judged favorably spend eternity on a paradise Earth
• Hell is not everlasting torment, rather eternal destruction

That's about all I've got.

Mormons agree on that, where they disagree is that God is Elohim and Jesus is Jehovah (Jesus created the earth under the direction of God the Father).

The largest misconception about Mormons is that they believe they are the only ones that are "saved". The truth is only the most righteous live with God, but nearly everybody goes to a better place. Very few go to hell. It's not even certain whether or not Judas would go to hell.

 

[MercyPercy]

Mormon Jesus sounds pretty chill.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Very logical answer. She went to CR and came out indoctrinated with that nonsense. I've heard others say similar things and thought I'd get another opinion. Thanks.

Oh, and... FTR... I'm open to just about any question, and you should feel at liberty to ask. My impatience is with those who think their passing acquaintance with the Bible makes them experts on the Bible, those who don't want discussion but instead a platform to mock, etc...

Not saying that's you. By and large, I've enjoyed our discussions.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

MOST would be the proper word in your statement.....

I would agree with this. One example I've heard from a CoCer is they ask if Noah hadn't of used gopher wood, would God have saved him?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I would agree with this. One example I've heard from a CoCer is they ask if Noah hadn't of used gopher wood, would God have saved him?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Lol, yep, I'm serious.

 

[MercyPercy]

Just a good old bland former Catholic church attendee here. Maybe they could have retained me a little longer if there was something exciting going on, like snake wrasslin' or hooting and hollering song and dance.

I fell asleep often enough at our weekly school mass that my mom eventually got a call. She was not pleased.

 

[Vol8188]

Just a good old bland former Catholic church attendee here. Maybe they could have retained me a little longer if there was something exciting going on, like snake wrasslin' or hooting and hollering song and dance.

I fell asleep often enough at our weekly school mass that my mom eventually got a call. She was not pleased.

Pentecostal services are exciting for sure

 

[Orange_Crush]

Pentecostal services are exciting for sure

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwGGte4JmDc[/youtube]

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Oh, and... FTR... I'm open to just about any question, and you should feel at liberty to ask. My impatience is with those who think their passing acquaintance with the Bible makes them experts on the Bible, those who don't want discussion but instead a platform to mock, etc...

Not saying that's you. By and large, I've enjoyed our discussions.

Likewise, but the question just sounds of the "gotcha" nature. I just used to hear these women talk about their recovery in those terms.

My view of providing god all the credit for success and none of the blame for failures was incredulity. IMO, the attitude prevented them from truly finding the source of their substance abuse problems. Most people cannot properly address a problem like substance abuse without examining the root cause of the problem. It is something my ex still refuses to do and is probably the reason she is back in rehab, as we speak.

 

[Septic]

Pentecostal services are exciting for sure

 

[Septic]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwGGte4JmDc[/youtube]

Hell, I'd show up to that church, those are next level shenanigans. Think they'd let me sit in the corner on a lawn chair with a cooler?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I have no problem with an earnest question and while my thoughts are hard to define I will do my best.

While I believe every good thing is from the L-rd I believe He allows everything else as well. I believe there are times when the L-rd does not bless those who have sinned even though they are redeemed.

For example king David sinned and was under judgement
David prayed to God on behalf of the child; David fasted, then came and lay all night on the ground. 17 The court officials got up and stood next to him trying to get him off the ground, but he refused, and he wouldn’t eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day, the child died. The servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, because they said, “While the child was still alive, we spoke to him, and he didn’t listen to us; if we tell him now that the child is dead, he may do himself some harm.” 19 But when David saw his servants whispering to each other, he suspected that the child was dead. David asked his servants, “Is the child dead?” and they answered, “He is dead.”

20 Then David got up off the ground, washed, anointed himself and changed his clothes. He went into the house of Adonai and worshipped; then he went to his own palace; and when he asked for food, they served it to him; and he ate

Notice David's response to his servents questions

His servants asked him, “What are you doing? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat food!” 22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; because I thought, ‘Maybe Adonai will show his grace to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he’s dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

And how did David live on?
David comforted his wife Bat-Sheva, came to her and went to bed with her; she gave birth to a son and named him Shlomo. Adonai loved him 25 and sent through Natan the prophet to have him named Y’didyah [loved by God], for Adonai’s sake.

I, like David, love YHVH for who He is and not what he can give me or do for me.
If He blesses me the I'm grateful. If I'm under judgement ( which I currently believe I am for something that I won't go into here) then its righteous judgement and mine to own.
Either way I choose to live my life as Job did. When he faced the possibility of his own death ....

15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
I will surely[a] defend my ways to his face.

It may seem odd to some but that's where I'm at.



And I know a lot of you hate all the scripture but that's the foundation of my life.
Let's try it another way.... It was Ice T who said " you don't like my lifestyle?!? F you!"

Thanks for the response.

Does hard work and persistence have any role in your successes or are you saying that your success or failure is predestined?

 

[MercyPercy]

Pentecostal services are exciting for sure

The most exciting thing that happened at my Catholic church was the inevitable fainting episode from someone in the pews. Happened a few times a year. Smart bastards were probably faking it to gtfo.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Likewise, but the question just sounds of the "gotcha" nature. I just used to hear these women talk about their recovery in those terms.

My view of providing god all the credit for success and none of the blame for failures was incredulity. IMO, the attitude prevented them from truly finding the source of their substance abuse problems. Most people cannot properly address a problem like substance abuse without examining the root cause of the problem. It is something my ex still refuses to do and is probably the reason she is back in rehab, as we speak.

Addiction is generally self medication and scar-numbing. You have to deal with the underlying issues to deal with the symptoms. It also generally is rooted in a lack of tools to deal with issues, so you generally have to give a healthy toolset as well.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Hell, I'd show up to that church, those are next level shenanigans. Think they'd let me sit in the corner on a lawn chair with a cooler?

Definitely next-level. What's in the cooler? Lawn-chair... Nylon mesh or newfangled folders? That looks like a pretty traditional bunch.

Throw some Petra on the boom box and see what they do.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Addiction is generally self medication and scar-numbing. You have to deal with the underlying issues to deal with the symptoms. It also generally is rooted in a lack of tools to deal with issues, so you generally have to give a healthy toolset as well.

Sounds like you have some experience in this area.

 

[volprof]

No evidence? ok.

I find it absolutely comical that people blame the evil of mankind on religion. Mankind has fought and killed over non-religious issues. The truth is, mankind doesn't need much provocation. Mankind corrupts most everything he touches, including religion. James stated that true religion was caring for widows and oprhans. How dare he. Portraying Christians as this monolithic, hateful group, who want to kill *****s is a much more dangerous narrative.

Provide me an example of a mainstream Christian denomination promoting violence based on their belief in eternal life. Many of these posts are a horrid mischaracterzation.
Some of the greatest crimes and genocide in modern times have been perpetrated by regimes that are non-religious.

Firstly, you're pulling a mrorange on me here and attributing to me things I never said. Secondly, yes, we all get it: the majority of Christians are nice. Thirdly, yes, we all get it: plenty of non-religious people have killed other people for the sake of other ideologies. Fourthly, yes, the Abrahamic Trio (and the fact that you persist in singling out Christianity alone, which I did not is telling on your part) inspires more fanaticism than the other religions. Evidence? Just look at world history. I've never seen massive groups of Buddhists, Hindus, and others going around committing the atrocities on the grand scale that the Abrahamic Trio have, but I'm sure you can find at least one or two obscure examples from history. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that people are willing to do crazier things for absolutist narratives that guarantee them eternal life than they are for narratives that give them no such guarantee. That's just common sense.

 

[Quaint88]

If you are talking to a Calvinist, then this is a perfect question. Since Im not a Calvinist, i find it a good question, but if I'm being candid i think it's flawed.

I disagree with the rest of your analogy. First off, we must ask, could God have done things differently than He did? In one sense yes, but in another, no. Sure, God's power could have created a world different than the one we know, but then we must ask what results would such a world present. Now, if anyone thinks they are qualified to work through those contingencies, then please be my guest.

It looks like you're saying we would need to examine the implications of the change for logical absurdities. I do think that would be a best-case scenario, but I can't find one yet. If some of the people who will choose to serve God will only do so because of the existence of some person or people who will choose not to serve God, then God could just not create them as well. If some of the people who will choose to serve God will only do so because of a person or people who will only choose to serve God because of a person or people who will choose not to serve God, then God could just not create them as well. As you implied, this could go on and on, but this idea seems okay to me as long as God ends up creating at least one person. If not, I guess I'm left with the idea that an all-powerful being somehow needs people to go to hell in order to execute the rest of his plans. In other words, God couldn't have done it any other way. Tying God's hands is something I keep running into on this one, even though I'm trying very hard to avoid it.

In other words, is God just playing in His sandbox, or does this world 'fit' His ultimate plans? That is to say, is God working all things together for the good of those who love Him?

After the previous dead end (as far as I can tell at least), it looks like God could have done it differently, but chose to do it this way (this is His plan). This is where I find myself thinking about what a strange choice it was, and how little regard God would have to have for the people he created knowing they would go to hell. I know that God doesn't have to be how we want him to be, but I can't help but find this idea disappointing. Am I more concerned for those people than God is?

If it's the latter, then love really is the ultimate ethic, and that begs the question, what then is love? If we are to be the recipients and reciprocators of God's love, then we must have the potentiality to do so.

Example, let's say you are fond of another, and you are romantically pursuing this person. Unfortunately, they are not interested in you, and the more you pursue them, the more resistant they are to your advances. What do you do? Do you force them to love you? Can you?

From a classical perspective, evil is not a thing, but a privation. And thus, Hell (whatever that is) is not a thing, but a privation. God is not going to force anyone to spend eternity with Him. If He did, that wouldn't be very loving would it.

So, could God create a world where love (reciprocal, genuine love) was possible, but rejection of it was not? No, it is logically impossible.

As I said before, this is where you lose me. Since it seems to be the crux of your explanation, I would like to understand it.

And if love is the ultimate ethic (and it is) then people can also reject this love. This can manifest in a number of ways. Sin, then, is at its root, a privation of love. So, one might say Hell is a privation of eternal life, and although unfortunate, necessary.

Now, we can discuss whether Hell is annihilation, temporary, or eternal and whether it is the same for everyone, different degrees, fire, brimstone, etc.

It's hard to respond to the rest without understanding the point above it, but it seems hell is only necessary if God creates at least one person who will choose not to serve him.

 

[n_huffhines]

Pentecostal services are exciting for sure

Mormons have reverent services. I've visited almost every kind of church and Pentecostal services are the only ones that made me uncomfortable.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

It looks like you're saying we would need to examine the implications of the change for logical absurdities. I do think that would be a best-case scenario, but I can't find one yet. If some of the people who will choose to serve God will only do so because of the existence of some person or people who will choose not to serve God, then God could just not create them as well. If some of the people who will choose to serve God will only do so because of a person or people who will only choose to serve God because of a person or people who will choose not to serve God, then God could just not create them as well. As you implied, this could go on and on, but this idea seems okay to me as long as God ends up creating at least one person. If not, I guess I'm left with the idea that an all-powerful being somehow needs people to go to hell in order to execute the rest of his plans. In other words, God couldn't have done it any other way. Tying God's hands is something I keep running into on this one, even though I'm trying very hard to avoid it.



After the previous dead end (as far as I can tell at least), it looks like God could have done it differently, but chose to do it this way (this is His plan). This is where I find myself thinking about what a strange choice it was, and how little regard God would have to have for the people he created knowing they would go to hell. I know that God doesn't have to be how we want him to be, but I can't help but find this idea disappointing. Am I more concerned for those people than God is?



As I said before, this is where you lose me. Since it seems to be the crux of your explanation, I would like to understand it.



It's hard to respond to the rest without understanding the point above it, but it seems hell is only necessary if God creates at least one person who will choose not to serve him.

I won't respond for Roust, but I am curious as to why you attribute new births as God's creation vs the free will of two adults choosing to have a child. Or in the worst case, a female that was raped choosing not to abort the child. Or, am I misunderstanding something?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Mechanistically? You'll have to clarify. First are you speaking to immutability or dietary restrictions, and what do you mean by mechanistically?

Immutability with everything else.

 

[PKT_VOL]

There are differences in the way Christian Church worship however all Christian Churches believe in the gospel of the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. That we receive salvation through grace by faith. This is the essential doctrine of Christian Churches.

We do differ on such things as is the Sabbath Saturday or Sunday. Do we baptise by submersion or sprinkle. How often do we take communion. Our salvation is not dependent on any of these differences.

This is disingenuous. The concepts of "sin", "salvation", "faith", "grace", the nature of Jesus, etc. are not uniform. That is where the differences come in. That is where the splits in Church doctrine come in.

Hmmm...I'm willing to guess you don't consider Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and maybe even Catholics to be Christians? Those are Biblically based religions and there are differences when it comes to salvation.

Yep, among others.

 

[Quaint88]

I won't respond for Roust, but I am curious as to why you attribute new births as God's creation vs the free will of two adults choosing to have a child. Or in the worst case, a female that was raped choosing not to abort the child. Or, am I misunderstanding something?

The reason I don't differentiate between birth and creation is that I don't see a difference between manually creating something, and creating something else that you absolutely know will result in that thing.

Having said that, I will take a closer look at that assumption to see where it leads me. Thanks!

EDIT: I don't see how it changes the situation not to equate creation and birth. I see it as the difference between knocking over the last domino and knocking over a domino that you know will eventually knock over the last domino. If you set up the dominoes, there's effectively no difference in responsibility for the last domino falling. Absolute control of the starting conditions and absolute knowledge of the outcomes are still present and problematic (for me at least).

 

[PKT_VOL]

There are many things that the Bible doesn't spell out, and many that it does. I don't see why that should be an issue. It's clear on what it needs to be clear about.

As to why there are so many denominations, it's a more complex question, even though you seem to want to be the one who likes to hyper-generalize and want only simple answers (that match your agenda).

There are many denominations because God is gracious enough to give us varied worship styles. I think more importantly, there are many denominations because Christians are still human and can have a tendency to walk in the flesh as opposed to the Spirit. Instead of making the 'main thing the main thing', the church has had tendencies to 'major in the minors' to the discredit of the majors.

The people in churches have broken fellowship over people and pet doctrines, as opposed to seeking humble unity for the purpose of glorifying Jesus.

It's been a problem in the church since it was founded. The problem isn't with the Bible. It's with people.



So, is the fact of many denomination by definition a problem in Christianity? No. People respond differently to different styles of worship, and I believe God gave us different styles of worship as a gift. Do the reasons for 'splits' often reflect an unspiritual immaturity in the Christians who split. You bet. But it's a problem with the vessel, not the contents.

This is crap. The reason there are many denominations is the interpretation of scripture. If the entirety of the Bible was to be interpreted literally, there would be one denomination (assuming one accepts this or God dictated such). Once that standard is gone, fractures within the Church over interpretation is soon to follow.