True enough but I only say it when I see someone is only posting to provoke negative responses with no actual desire for positive one's or any investment in honesty.Many think like that, but it doesn't mean they're right.
True enough but I only say it when I see someone is only posting to provoke negative responses with no actual desire for positive one's or any investment in honesty.Many think like that, but it doesn't mean they're right.
So what is your favourite sub-genre of the christians?... anyone that thinks the catholic church is christian needs to have his head read.
But everything that contradicts or challenges your beliefs are naturally going to be considered by you as negative provocation.True enough but I only say it when I see someone is only posting to provoke negative responses with no actual desire for positive one's or any investment in honesty.
Don't have one, the protestants were closest for the last few centuries. Now things seem to resetting to default and a new church of sorts seems to be close to being born. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.So what is your favourite sub-genre of the christians?
Over time I've learn't that true christians don't resort to that.anyone that thinks the catholic church is christian needs to have his head read.
Only if the intent is simply for the sake of causing petty arguments. Actual honest contradiction where everyone actually acts like adults is fine.But everything that contradicts or challenges your beliefs are naturally going to be considered by you as negative provocation.
Don't misunderstand, the catholic church even in it's clergy has many true Christians within it, the religion however is utterly corrupt.Over time I've learn't that true christians don't resort to that.
What religion are you, and which ones do you believe are not corrupt?Don't misunderstand, the catholic church even in it's clergy has many true Christians within it, the religion however is utterly corrupt.
90% is rather overstating it
To a degree that is true. Hoever as anecdotal as this is I grew up in the NGK and simply left at some point because it saw and felt that I could never support such a obvious fraud. I did almost at one point give up and convert to a form of atheism or agnostism but found that just as much a fraud. Geoography and history is not everything otherwise atheism would never have spread in the first place especially since except in the communist block no one ever forced anyone to be atheist except some modern fanatically atheist parents.It's been nice chatting, and I feel we've made our points for the most part. I do just want to say this was a very much metaphorical statement; I think it's self-evident that the likelihood of a person ascribing to a certain religion (or having no religion) is closely linked to where and when they come from. Less so today, obviously, since the world is becoming a smaller place, and information and ideas can be transmitted at the speed of light anywhere in the globe, but 500 years ago (or some other arbitrary date back in time), I'm almost certain that most people would ascribe to the views of the humans in geographical proximity to them (until, of course, another, stronger geographical cluster decides to educate them...)
All current mainline denominations are corrupt to some degree or another, the older the more corrupt probably, the only true faith remains in isolated congregations made from of all of them. Funny thing how the great ecumenical push to create one new forced version actually ended up creating that as well as a separate unorganized resistance that has started integrating but not by any apparent means.What religion are you, and which ones do you believe are not corrupt?
What religion are you, and which ones do you believe are not corrupt?
Trust me, I read that a few times but couldn't find the answer to my questions.All current mainline denominations are corrupt to some degree or another, the older the more corrupt probably, the only true faith remains in isolated congregations made from of all of them. Funny thing how the great ecumenical push to create one new forced version actually ended up creating that as well as a separate unorganized resistance that has started integrating but not by any apparent means.
Instead of the church converting the world the world has almost finished converting the church.... as was prophesied funny enough.
I did not think it too cryptic.Trust me, I read that a few times but couldn't find the answer to my questions.
What religion are you?
What religion are those isolated congregations?
Nope I don't use it as a petty insult, I use it as a statement of fact based observation of past behavior.
They did not exist before the flood, the are likely descendants of Shem.... also they too have a flood story.
Is there a specific question or do you not know who he was?Tell me more about Shem, then?
Isn't the baptism symbolic, so why get hung up on the variation in method?I did not think it too cryptic.
I am a Christian, I am not a protestant or catholic or evangelical. I am simply a Christian who recognizes the Church Age is ending. I came out of the NGK for what it matters but I have delved to a point into all denominational strains and at some point will be properly baptised as opposed to the ridiculous sprinkling as a baby called baptism but at this point have no church or congregation I am a member of.
There is no current official organized Christian church worthy of the name that I am aware of, like I said, it's all resetting to default.
True enough but I only say it when I see someone is only posting to provoke negative responses with no actual desire for positive one's or any investment in honesty.
Agreed, not very cryptic, but it didn't honestly answer the questions.I did not think it too cryptic.
Symbolism only works if you use the correct symbols.... as soon as baptism in church comes up people stop speaking english and suddenly sprinkling is also baptism.Isn't the baptism symbolic, so why get hung up on the variation in method?
Is there a specific question or do you not know who he was?