The Great Deception of Christianity - Departing the Faith (the Word)

[metis]

I believe you missed the part where it says the one body has many parts: I Cor. 12:14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body
More likely these days it is the body saying it doesn't have a hand or because I am a hand, I am better than a foot.

I didn't miss it at all since Paul's reference is to various roles that were, and still are, very much a part of the Church's mission and structure. At no point does Paul state nor imply that there is more than "one body", to use his own words, that are to be followed and participated in. It is this very simple fact that was partially instrumental in my abandoning the Protestant faith I grew up in after doing the research on early Christian history and reading how the Apostles and their appointees pictured the Church and its roles.

This reality also shows up rather clearly in Acts, whereas the Church is appointing successors and also moving out of eretz Israel, and also in many of the epistles whereas the importance of appointees and the congregation following them is continued. At no point is there ever a "just do your own thing" approach sanctioned.

And just a reminder that the canon of the Bible you quoted from above was actually the byproduct and selection by the Church itself. Other books by other groups were rejected.

 

[metis]

God's Word

What you call "God's Word" was written by and selected by the Church, the "one body" as Paul calls it, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also, see my post above.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome.

When I read something like this, I think that you can conceive of what it means to be agnostic about an idea, and I have hope that you might be able to see that no faith is required to not believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true or false.

And you seem to be aware of the distinction between what you call disbelief and being unsure, what I would call agnostic.

Then I read something like this:

Now if you have no belief or a lack of belief that there is no God and have no evidence for this belief then in my opinion it is simply a faith based belief in the opposite direction of theism.

What happened to unsure? What evidence is needed to say one is unsure? What belief do you think I hold that I need evidence for? Do you still think that I am saying that there are no gods? That would be a faith-based belief, but it's not my belief.

So once again, what belief do you think I have stated about gods and the belief in them that needs evidence?

If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.

Then I read something like the above, and hope is restored

complete neutrality about a concept is impossible

Then this. Hope dashed.

How many people are posting on your account?

 

[3rdAngel]

I didn't miss it at all since Paul's reference is to various roles that were, and still are, very much a part of the Church's mission and structure. At no point does Paul state nor imply that there is more than "one body", to use his own words, that are to be followed and participated in. It is this very simple fact that was partially instrumental in my abandoning the Protestant faith I grew up in after doing the research on early Christian history and reading how the Apostles and their appointees pictured the Church and its roles.

This reality also shows up rather clearly in Acts, whereas the Church is appointing successors and also moving out of eretz Israel, and also in many of the epistles whereas the importance of appointees and the congregation following them is continued. At no point is there ever a "just do your own thing" approach sanctioned.

And just a reminder that the canon of the Bible you quoted from above was actually the byproduct and selection by the Church itself. Other books by other groups were rejected.

I believe what your missing here is that the body of Christ according to the scriptures are only those who believe and follow God's Word. Christ's church (made up of all those who believe and follow God's Word) in the scriptures is represented as a pure Woman. This is Christs Church of which Christ is the head and his people the body. An unfaithful Woman (Church) is represented as a Harlot who are all those who do not believe or follow God's Word. These are not God's Church (people) according to the scriptures. Your belief that God is not in control of his Word only shows unbelief in my opinion. Do you seriously think that the creator of heaven and earth and all mankind is not in control of his Word and what makes up the bible that has prospered and gone out into all the world and in nearly every language and peoples? If you do not believe God is in control of his Word, I believe you worship a different God to what I do. Have a think about what you are saying and what you believe.

 

[3rdAngel]

Hello ANS, nice to see you again. Some comments for your consideration below.

When I read something like this, I think that you can conceive of what it means to be agnostic about an idea, and I have hope that you might be able to see that no faith is required to not believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true or false. And you seem to be aware of the distinction between what you call disbelief and being unsure, what I would call agnostic. What happened to unsure? What evidence is needed to say one is unsure? What belief do you think I hold that I need evidence for? Do you still think that I am saying that there are no gods? That would be a faith-based belief, but it's not my belief.

I already understand the difference between agnostic and athiesm which is opposed to thiesm. As evidence of this claim, I have already shown this in the many definitions I have already supplied in past posts and also investigating the Greek meaning of athiesm (opposed to thiesm). As to "lack of belief" I do believe that many misunderstand it's application to athiesm and what "lack of belief" means which is why I supplied the detail in the last post which I put up in another thread somewhere. No faith is needed to demonstrate something is not true or true if you have not previously made a decision to categorise a belief to believe or not believe. This is however not the case for most people here in this forum or relavant to athiesm that has already made that decision in my opinion as shown in the complete post you are quoting from.

3rdAngel said: ↑ complete neutrality about a concept is impossible

Your response....

Then this. Hope dashed.

The context of this is in relation to being exposed to an idea or belief over time. Let's get real. If you are neutral you would not have an opinion one way or another as you would not have a point of view. Most of your posts that I have seen are arguing against God which is consistent with athiesm which is defined as opposed to thiesm. I believe this is your belief at the moment. That does not mean beliefs cannot change over time in my opinion. I believe we are constantly defining and redefining what it is we believe or do not believe.

How many people are posting on your account?

I am not sure why you would ask this? May I ask why? I am the only person who posts on my account.
There was a lot more content in the last post you were quoting from that already addressed much of what you have posted here. Take some more time to read it if you can. Thanks for sharing your thoughts ANS.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All interpretations are bound to be flawed. Some more than others. But I do not think that God wants people to deliver their personal interpretations as if they are His words and then start judging others using those interpretations.

In my opinion, that is what I have seen here.

Nonsense. That's like saying the English Professor can't grade his students on the correctness of his students' interpretations of texts. Sure there is a lot of flexibility. But there are times when students are just going to be WRONG.

 

[3rdAngel]

Some questions we have covered in this OP (please prove your claims if you can) linked below..

1. Have the Christian Church’s of the World fallen away from the pure Word of God?
2. Who is MYSTERY BABYLON and who is THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS?
3. Who are the HARLOT DAUGHTERS of MYSTERY BABYLON?
4. Who is the “LITTLE HORN of DANIEL 7 that speaks great things against God and wears out the saints of the most high and changes times and laws?
5. Who are the BEASTS of REVELATION 13?
6. Who is the man of sin, the Antichrist and what is the number of His name?
7. What is the Mark of the Beast we are warned against receiving in our forehead of hands (starts)?
8. What did the early reformer teach about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church (starts)?
9. Who is God’s truth unfallen Church according to the scriptures?
10. Is there paganism and sun whoship inside the Roman Catholic Church?

Anyone have any more thoughts?

 

[metis]

I believe what your missing here is that the body of Christ according to the scriptures are only those who believe and follow God's Word.

As the saying goes: "You can have your own opinions but not your own facts", and what I posted were facts that one can easily look up in regards to both the NT and Christian history in the first four centuries of the Church. Even the Wiki articles on "Christianity" and the "Catholic Church" are half-way decent.

I believe you worship a different God to what I do.

You are so utterly clueless about Catholicism and its teachings, as at each mass we cover several scripture readings from both the OT and NT, plus the homily (sermon) must reflect at least the Gospel readings. All of our prayers are directed to God that's covered in the Bible you and I both own.

And now you basically have stuck your thumbs in both Jesus' and Paul's eye by badmouthing the Church that they, along with the Apostles, created and stated would last until the end of times and would be "one body", not myriads of bodies. You clearly don't believe them, and yet you claim you believe in the Bible. Maybe actually attend a Catholic mass and see and listen for yourself instead of posting the nonsensical bigotry you've been posting on this. IOW, maybe check for yourself instead of blindly believing what someone else has taught you.

BTW, which denomination is your church of?

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ I believe what your missing here is that the body of Christ according to the scriptures are only those who believe and follow God's Word.

Your response...

As the saying goes: "You can have your own opinions but not your own facts", and what I posted were facts that one can easily look up in regards to both the NT and Christian history in the first four centuries of the Church. Even the Wiki articles on "Christianity" and the "Catholic Church" are half-way decent.

Depends if you believe the scriptures are God's Word or not. My evidence is the scriptures for which I have been quoting. God's Word is not my word or my own opinion it is God's Word and it is eviedence that many Church's have departed the Faith and are following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God in my opinion. We can only know these things by comparing the scriptures to the teachings of the church and what the church does. This is both evidence and fact and not opinion.

You are so utterly clueless about Catholicism and its teachings, as at each mass we cover several scripture readings from both the OT and NT, plus the homily (sermon) must reflect at least the Gospel readings. All of our prayers are directed to God that's covered in the Bible you and I both own.

Not really. All Church's will have scripture readings. This is not the problem in my opinion. This problem is these same churchs put man made teachings and traditions before the Word of God that has lead many away from God's Word to break the commandments of God. That does not mean God does not have His people in these churchs. I believe God's people are in every church but that the chuch's have fallen away from God's Word and departed the faith according to the scriptures. That hour is coming and now is that the true worshippers will woship God in Spirit and in truth. God is calling his people out from these Church's back to the pure Word of God as God is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.

And now you basically have stuck your thumbs in both Jesus' and Paul's eye by badmouthing the Church that they, along with the Apostles, created and stated would last until the end of times and would be "one body", not myriads of bodies. You clearly don't believe them, and yet you claim you believe in the Bible. Maybe actually attend a Catholic mass and see and listen for yourself instead of posting the nonsensical bigotry you've been posting on this. IOW, maybe check for yourself instead of blindly believing what someone else has taught you.

Not at all. As posted earlier I believe God's true Church according to the scriptures are all those who believe and follow God's Word. The Church is not a building or a denomination. The Greek word is ἐκκλησία; ekklēsia From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation. It is an assemby of believers. JESUS says where two of three (believers) are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.

Christ's church (made up of all those who believe and follow God's Word) in the scriptures is represented as a pure Woman. This is Christs Church of which Christ is the head and his people the body. An unfaithful Woman (Church) is represented as a Harlot who are all those who do not believe or follow God's Word. These are not God's Church (people) according to the scriptures. Simply the above is applied to all those who profess to be believing of JESUS. God's Church is not a church building or Church denomination according to the scriptures.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nonsense. That's like saying the English Professor can't grade his students on the correctness of his students' interpretations of texts. Sure there is a lot of flexibility. But there are times when students are just going to be WRONG.

The English Professor can do that, but we are just students here. I see some students have decided they are the professor and not only get to interpret, but make their interpretation the only one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I already understand the difference between agnostic and athiesm which is opposed to thiesm.

I don't think you understand how I and most people who call themselves agnostic atheists use those words. I keep telling you that I am an agnostic atheist, that is, somebody with no reason to believe that gods do or do not exist, and therefore no belief or disbelief in them, and you keep posting that I am arguing against gods.

The only gods I argue are nonexistent are those described in mutually exclusive terms.They are logically impossible.

As evidence of this claim, I have already shown this in the many definitions I have already supplied in past posts and also investigating the Greek meaning of athiesm (opposed to thiesm).

But your posting in your own words makes me think you don't understand what I am telling you. It seems tht you still think that one cannot simultaneously be both an agnostic and an atheist as I have defined the terms. Obviously, one can be exactly what I just described.

No faith is needed to demonstrate something is not true or true if you have not previously made a decision to categorise a belief to believe or not believe. This is however not the case for most people here in this forum or relavant to athiesm that has already made that decision in my opinion as shown in the complete post you are quoting from.

I disagree. It seems that most atheists posting on RF are agnostic. The only decisions that they have made is to question all claims, believe only those which are sufficiently justified by evidence, that the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief, and that they therefore choose to live outside of religion and with no god belief.

Let's get real. If you are neutral you would not have an opinion one way or another as you would not have a point of view.

I really don't know what it is you think I believe and am claiming. I've asked you before and gotten no reply.

Most of your posts that I have seen are arguing against God

Disagree again. I don't think you've seen a single post from me arguing that gods don't exist. It's not my claim.

This is why I think that you don't understand what I am actually saying. You translate it into something else, but don't state explicitly what you think that is apart from "arguing against God."

 

[metis]

Hope this is helpful.

Not really because the question was which church does your denomination belong to, if any? I figured you'd probably not answer it. It's absolutely hypocritical for you to offer nothing while attacking other denominations.

We're now fini for good, as I've had more than enough of your disingenuous games here at RF, as Jesus didn't teach us to be hate-filled and bigoted.

 

[3rdAngel]

I don't think you understand how I and most people who call themselves agnostic atheists use those words. I keep telling you that I am an agnostic atheist, that is, somebody with no reason to believe that gods do or do not exist, and therefore no belief or disbelief in them, and you keep posting that I am arguing against gods.

As shown and posted earlier I believe an agnostic athiest is a contradiction of definitions and therefore no such thing. If you did not believe or have a view of God existing or not you would simply not be discussing it. I believe we have been discussing this conversation a lot now and you have already formed a view that is opposed to God which is the definition of athiesm.

The only gods I argue are nonexistent are those described in mutually exclusive terms.They are logically impossible.

What is logical about haveing a view for which there is no evidence? It is a view that is simply faith based. If you cannot prove there is no God and you have no evidence your view in my opinion is based on faith.

But your posting in your own words makes me think you don't understand what I am telling you. It seems tht you still think that one cannot simultaneously be both an agnostic and an atheist as I have defined the terms. Obviously, one can be exactly what I just described.

I believe me posting in my own words demonstrates that I do understand the terms. It is true however I do reject the term agnostic athiest. As it is a contradiction of definitions. In my view there is no such thing as an agnostic athiest. The reasons for this have also been shown and demonstrated in post # 300 linked.

3rdAngel said: ↑ No faith is needed to demonstrate something is not true or true if you have not previously made a decision to categorise a belief to believe or not believe. This is however not the case for most people here in this forum or relavant to athiesm that has already made that decision in my opinion as shown in the complete post you are quoting from.

Your response...

I disagree. It seems that most atheists posting on RF are agnostic. The only decisions that they have made is to question all claims, believe only those which are sufficiently justified by evidence, that the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief, and that they therefore choose to live outside of religion and with no god belief.

I am sorry I have not seen any evidence of this. I think nearly every athiest I have ever met argues for the existence of no God and do not believe in God or that there is a God. I have asked people directly and this was the response I was given consistent with the definitions I have already provided from multiple linked sources. As posted earlier these have all categorised God into non existence or no God making their views faith based.

3rdAngel said: ↑ Let's get real. If you are neutral you would not have an opinion one way or another as you would not have a point of view.

Your response...

I really don't know what it is you think I believe and am claiming. I've asked you before and gotten no reply.

I think I have made it very clear what I believe you think in this post and others such as post # 300 linked.

Disagree again. I don't think you've seen a single post from me arguing that gods don't exist. It's not my claim. This is why I think that you don't understand what I am actually saying. You translate it into something else, but don't state explicitly what you think that is apart from "arguing against God."

Perhaps you do not see it but I do. You try to put up arguments to disprove God claiming no evidence of God yet you cannot prove there is no God which means your putting up arguments opposed to God which is simply faith based. Some things cannot be known through science when there is no way to measure something is true or not true. Yet who can argue with someone's personal experience which is evidence in and of itself not only to the idividual but to the collective witness that is world wide to 1/3 of the worlds current population that has been present all through time?

Nice to see you ANS, hope you are well.

 

[3rdAngel]

Not really because the question was which church does your denomination belong to, if any? I figured you'd probably not answer it. It's absolutely hypocritical for you to offer nothing while attacking other denominations.

We're now fini for good, as I've had more than enough of your disingenuous games here at RF, as Jesus didn't teach us to be hate-filled and bigoted.

My church is that of the bible. The question was never which Church does my denomination belong to. This is something you only added to the end after making claims to the Roman Catholic Church as being the true Church of God. While I believe God's people are in every church the scriptures show that God's true Church are only those who believe and follow God's Word. Those who do not are not God's Church. I believe according to the scriptures as shown already in previous posts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The English Professor can do that, but we are just students here. I see some students have decided they are the professor and not only get to interpret, but make their interpretation the only one.

Some students are smart enough to get it right. Those are the ones who, here in the forum, are telling others they are wrong.

 

[sojourner]

I believe

This is the only pertinent part of your post. Because none of what you believe is fact. The rest of your post is mean-spirited fluff.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (not the people

The church IS the people. That’s what the word means.

 

[sojourner]

While I believe God's people are in every church the scriptures show that God's true Church are only those who believe and follow God's Word. Those who do not are not God's Church

And who has the authority to decide and define 1) what absolutely constitutes “God’s word,” and 2) what constitutes “belief?” What you believe is immaterial and can apply to nothing except what you decide “works for you. The only one with authority to make the aforementioned judgments on behalf of the Christian household has elected to withhold judgment for now.

 

[3rdAngel]

This is the only pertinent part of your post. Because none of what you believe is fact.

I believe you have been provided scripture evidence here in support of what is being shared here as supporting fact. In response you post your own opinion which is not fact but simply your opinion unsupported by scripture. You are free to believe as you wish but to me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God.

The rest of your post is mean-spirited fluff.

Not really my friend! God's Word is God's Word, it is not mean spirited fluff and we should believe and follow them over man made teachings and traditions that deny God. I believe God's Word is a blessing or a curse. It is a blessing to those who believe and follow them and a curse to those who do not believe and do not follow. I believe you seem not to like the scriptures because they point out that you follow a different path to what is in them in my opinion. I believe according to the scriptures that this is condemnation, becauase light (truth of God's Word) is come into the world, but men loved darkness (false teachings and man-made traditions) rather than light (truth of God's Word), because their deeds were evil (sin). Everyone that does evil (sin) hates the light (truth of God's Word), neither comes to the light (truth of God's Word), lest his deeds (sins) should be reproved. I only share God's Word because that is where we find JESUS. I believe those who ignore God's Word do so because they are feel condemned by it.

The church IS the people. That’s what the word means.

Indeed this is what I shared through the scriptures earlier. God's true Church are only those who believe and follow God's Word.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[3rdAngel]

And who has the authority to decide and define 1) what absolutely constitutes “God’s word,” and 2) what constitutes “belief?” What you believe is immaterial and can apply to nothing except what you decide “works for you. The only one with authority to make the aforementioned judgments on behalf of the Christian household has elected to withhold judgment for now.

God does. Everything is how God wants it to be. Do you not think God is in control of His Word?

 

[sojourner]

I believe you have been provided scripture evidence here in support of what is being shared here as supporting fact

You’ve provided scripture that you have interpreted to mean what you want it to mean. That is only evidence of your bias, not “God’s word.”

In response you post your own opinion which is not fact but simply your opinion unsupported by scripture

It’s my opinion of what is the only reasonable part of your post based on what you yourself wrote. Are you saying that your opinion is unsupported by scripture now?

to me only God's Word is true

You have yet to provide that word. It appears you believe that only your opinion is true.

God's Word is God's Word

Except you have not accurately represented it. All you’ve provided is a twisted opinion.

ndeed this is what I shared through the scriptures earlier. God's true Church are only those who believe and follow God's Word

Nope. I pointed out that you said, “this isn’t about the people, only about the [Catholic Church].” To which I replied here: the Catholic Church is the people.

IOW your claim that it’s not about the people is untrue. Since the Catholic Church is the people, when you accuse the Church you ARE accusing the people. The ecclesiological truth is that you cannot separate the church from the people.

Your OP and your post here are disingenuous.