Religiously Confused

rrobs · May 2, 2018

Lvcifer Invictvs said:
I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. I think only Oneness Pentecostals believe the Son and the Father are the same. Trinitarians say nothing of the sort.

What I was trying to say was that unless you've actually studied the Bible for yourself, you should not claim to know what it says. I've not read much about paganism, so I really can't claim to know much about it. But I do know that trinities are quite common, as evidenced by the Wiki article on the subject. And, having studied the Bible for myself, I also know that there is no trinity in it. It doesn't make me in any way better than the next guy. It just means I know what I'm talking about from my own personal study and not just from church doctrine.

That nonsensical diagram is standard church doctrine. Way more than just the Oneness Pentecostals. At least that's my experience. I've been discussing the trinity for many years. In my research I've read over and over again that the trinity is the "cornerstone" of Christianity. I'm constantly told I'm going to hell for not believing in the trinity, and that include Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and pretty much all the rest of the "Christian" sects. They would burn me at the stake if we were in the 16th century.

Does any of that make more sense?

rrobs · May 2, 2018

ChristineM said:
Considering that no valid evidence has ever been presented in favour of god or gods it seems to me that belief in god(s) is a guess

It might be a dumb question, but is there proof God does not exist? If not, then it would be a guess to say there is no god. Can you prove that George Washington was our first president or do you just believe the text books. The Bible is another text book and it says God does exist.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but there is a book that claims to offer all things that pertain to life. That would be the Bible and the verse is 2 Peter 1:3. Check it out for yourself. It's a bold claim at the very least. I would think that before one makes a decision on the matter they would have at least spent time studying the Bible for themselves.

I don't blame you for rejecting the church doctrine. The insane idea of 3 persons in 1 is enough to turn off anybody with an ounce of intelligence like yourself. And their doctrine goes downhill from there. But take it from someone who has spent much time in personal research, the Bible message is quite a bit different than the nonsense coming from pulpits across the world every Sunday morning.

Finally, do we not value an open mind in our enlightened culture? I've not believed in God and now I do, so I've seen it from both sides. In short, my mind was not closed to the idea that God does in fact exist. My study confirmed that he does exist. The book was written over a period of 4,000 years by many different people. The book claims that all of these people were inspired by God to write what they wrote. It would be impossible for so many people to write such a coherent book over such a long span of time unless their was indeed some single source of knowledge. The book itself has an incredibly complex plot which could only be authored by one entity.

Saint Frankenstein · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
What I was trying to say was that unless you've actually studied the Bible for yourself, you should not claim to know what it says. I've not read much about paganism, so I really can't claim to know much about it. But I do know that trinities are quite common, as evidenced by the Wiki article on the subject. And, having studied the Bible for myself, I also know that there is no trinity in it. It doesn't make me in any way better than the next guy. It just means I know what I'm talking about from my own personal study and not just from church doctrine.

That nonsensical diagram is standard church doctrine. Way more than just the Oneness Pentecostals. At least that's my experience. I've been discussing the trinity for many years. In my research I've read over and over again that the trinity is the "cornerstone" of Christianity. I'm constantly told I'm going to hell for not believing in the trinity, and that include Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and pretty much all the rest of the "Christian" sects. They would burn me at the stake if we were in the 16th century.

Does any of that make more sense?

Yes, that does make more sense. I disagree with you, though. I can see where the Bible points to the Trinity in a number of verses and stories. I was Catholic, though, so that is what I am familiar with. The arguments against the Trinity are usually misunderstandings when they're not blatant misrepresentations. If I ever did go back to Christianity, which I consider at times, it would only be as a Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican/Episcopalian. I could never be a Unitarian Christian because if Jesus wasn't God, it ruins the whole message of Christianity for me and the religion loses much of its impact and beauty.

You say Catholics have been condemning you to hell. That seems pretty out of character for many Catholics.

rrobs · May 2, 2018

Lvcifer Invictvs said:
Yes, that does make more sense. I disagree with you, though. I can see where the Bible points to the Trinity in a number of verses and stories. I was Catholic, though, so that is what I am familiar with. The arguments against the Trinity are usually misunderstandings when they're not blatant misrepresentations. If I ever did go back to Christianity, which I consider at times, it would only be as a Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican/Episcopalian. I could never be a Unitarian Christian because if Jesus wasn't God, it ruins the whole message of Christianity for me and the religion loses much of its impact and beauty.

You say Catholics have been condemning you to hell. That seems pretty out of character for many Catholics.

Go to Christian Forums and start a post claiming Jesus is not God. I guarantee you will be condemned to eternal suffering before getting banned from the site. They have the complete gamete of Christian sects there, Catholics and Protestants of all flavors.

Let's take John 1:1. That is the number one verse that trinitarians use to prove Jesus is God.

The verse says,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Most Christians read it as,

"In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."

They read it that way because that's how they've been taught by the churches. Do a little research on that word "word" and you will see it is the Greek word "logos" which had a very rich meaning to the 1st century Jew or Greek. Basically it means a plan, a blueprint. That's what was with God in the beginning. He knew the man Adam would sin and bring death into the world. A good question might be, "why didn't God just come down right after their disobedience, wave his magic wand and make everything right again? The short answer is free will. He wanted children to love him because they wanted to, not because they were programmed.

Since it was by free will that Adam disobeyed it would follow that some other man with free will would have to obey him to rectify the problem the first man caused. That's where Jesus comes in. Jesus is called the Second Adam in the Bible. He was a man just like Adam, you, and I. He, like all people, had free will. Whereas Adam disobeyed and caused death to enter the scene, the man Jesus always obeyed to the very end, thus freeing man from the pains of death.

The plan (the logos) God came up with is nothing short of genius to the nth degree. True, that plan involved Jesus, but it also required that Jesus be a man and not a god-man of some sort. Simply reading Jesus instead of logos is demeaning to both God for coming up with the plan and to Jesus who, as a man, carried out the plan to the letter. If he were God, what's the big deal if he obeyed himself? But for a man to be obedient, even to a most hideous death, is something altogether different and worthy of our credit and allegiance. It's simply brilliant. Reading "Jesus" instead of "logos" ruins the whole enchilada.

Now I don't expect you to believe anything I say, but after saying what I've said, I think it prudent to at least have some knowledge outside of church doctrine before making a decision. Trust me, the churches and the Bible are virtually at opposite ends of the spectrum. I can say with complete assurance that you don't know the Bible message if your only source of teaching as been Catholicism or any other mainstream church.

ChristineM · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
It might be a dumb question, but is there proof God does not exist? If not, then it would be a guess to say there is no god. Can you prove that George Washington was our first president or do you just believe the text books. The Bible is another text book and it says God does exist.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but there is a book that claims to offer all things that pertain to life. That would be the Bible and the verse is 2 Peter 1:3. Check it out for yourself. It's a bold claim at the very least. I would think that before one makes a decision on the matter they would have at least spent time studying the Bible for themselves.

I don't blame you for rejecting the church doctrine. The insane idea of 3 persons in 1 is enough to turn off anybody with an ounce of intelligence like yourself. And their doctrine goes downhill from there. But take it from someone who has spent much time in personal research, the Bible message is quite a bit different than the nonsense coming from pulpits across the world every Sunday morning.

Finally, do we not value an open mind in our enlightened culture? I've not believed in God and now I do, so I've seen it from both sides. In short, my mind was not closed to the idea that God does in fact exist. My study confirmed that he does exist. The book was written over a period of 4,000 years by many different people. The book claims that all of these people were inspired by God to write what they wrote. It would be impossible for so many people to write such a coherent book over such a long span of time unless their was indeed some single source of knowledge. The book itself has an incredibly complex plot which could only be authored by one entity.

Depends on your interpretation of reality.

To date every single attempt to prove a god exists has failed, that falls under proof by exhaustion, a valid mathematical and scientific proof. If just one attempt verifiably succeeds then then the proof has failed, in about 10ky of god worship it has never failed yet.

As for the strawman George Washington, and actually there is considerable evidence that Washington was Americas first president.

The bible says a lot of things such as rape, slavery, theft and subjugation are acceptable yet i assume you don't believe so.

You have no idea why i reject the church, i can assure you it was not because of doctrine but the people it produces. And yes i have read the Bible, 3 actually and parts of others, seems to me they have problems agreeing with each other.

Exactly, idea of god says it in a nutshell.

Coherent? As i said at the start, depends on your interpretation of reality

Saint Frankenstein · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
Go to Christian Forums and start a post claiming Jesus is not God. I guarantee you will be condemned to eternal suffering before getting banned from the site. They have the complete gamete of Christian sects there, Catholics and Protestants of all flavors.

Let's take John 1:1. That is the number one verse that trinitarians use to prove Jesus is God.

The verse says,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Most Christians read it as,

"In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."

They read it that way because that's how they've been taught by the churches. Do a little research on that word "word" and you will see it is the Greek word "logos" which had a very rich meaning to the 1st century Jew or Greek. Basically it means a plan, a blueprint. That's what was with God in the beginning. He knew the man Adam would sin and bring death into the world. A good question might be, "why didn't God just come down right after their disobedience, wave his magic wand and make everything right again? The short answer is free will. He wanted children to love him because they wanted to, not because they were programmed.

Since it was by free will that Adam disobeyed it would follow that some other man with free will would have to obey him to rectify the problem the first man caused. That's where Jesus comes in. Jesus is called the Second Adam in the Bible. He was a man just like Adam, you, and I. He, like all people, had free will. Whereas Adam disobeyed and caused death to enter the scene, the man Jesus always obeyed to the very end, thus freeing man from the pains of death.

The plan (the logos) God came up with is nothing short of genius to the nth degree. True, that plan involved Jesus, but it also required that Jesus be a man and not a god-man of some sort. Simply reading Jesus instead of logos is demeaning to both God for coming up with the plan and to Jesus who, as a man, carried out the plan to the letter. If he were God, what's the big deal if he obeyed himself? But for a man to be obedient, even to a most hideous death, is something altogether different and worthy of our credit and allegiance. It's simply brilliant. Reading "Jesus" instead of "logos" ruins the whole enchilada.

Now I don't expect you to believe anything I say, but after saying what I've said, I think it prudent to at least have some knowledge outside of church doctrine before making a decision. Trust me, the churches and the Bible are virtually at opposite ends of the spectrum. I can say with complete assurance that you don't know the Bible message if your only source of teaching as been Catholicism or any other mainstream church.

I see your point, but I still disagree. In Trinitarianism, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He still had doubts, experienced pain and despair. He took on the experience of separation from God, while still remaining sinless himself, and felt that God had forsook him. So his humanity still had to obey the will of the Father. But beyond obedience, the story of God becoming man is also powerful because it points to a God who loves his creation enough to become a part of of it by taking on the flesh of his creatures, sancifying it and redeeming it by uniting the Divine and the human. God himself becomes the reality of the future hope of Resurrection and the redemption of the entire cosmos by being the first to overcome death and be glorified in the flesh.

Catholics have Bibles and read them, you know. No one comes to the Bible without some sort of bias.

rrobs · May 2, 2018

ChristineM said:
Depends on your interpretation of reality.

To date every single attempt to prove a god exists has failed, that falls under proof by exhaustion, a valid mathematical and scientific proof. If just one attempt verifiably succeeds then then the proof has failed, in about 10ky of god worship it has never failed yet.

As for the strawman George Washington, and actually there is considerable evidence that Washington was Americas first president.

The bible says a lot of things such as rape, slavery, theft and subjugation are acceptable yet i assume you don't believe so.

You have no idea why i reject the church, i can assure you it was not because of doctrine but the people it produces. And yes i have read the Bible, 3 actually and parts of others, seems to me they have problems agreeing with each other.

Exactly, idea of god says it in a nutshell.

Coherent? As i said at the start, depends on your interpretation of reality

I trust you don't feel I'm attacking you personally. You are right, I know basically nothing about you or your life experiences, certainly not why you reject the church, so how could I possibly judge you. That is why I said I'm not asking you to believe a thing I say. By the way, I hope you understand my feeling about the churches mirrors yours. I too reject the churches. My whole point is that they have perverted the Bible message to the point where any intelligent individual would reject it. I'm just saying that if your sole source of knowledge of the Bible is from the churches, you don't really know what it says. There is certainly no shame in that, so please don't take it as thought I condemning you in any way. I give you credit for rejecting the churches. It's just too bad you didn't have the chance to hear the real story before getting indoctrinated into the insanity of church doctrine starting with God being 3 in 1 oil. It takes a miracle for someone to get past the church tradition and see God's word for what it is.

I never saw or heard George Washington any more than I've not seen or heard Jesus. The only knowledge I have of either one is from books. Why should I believe one and not the other?

Reality and interpretation are not the same thing at all. In fact there can only be one or the other. Here is a definition that came up with Google:

"the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

That's a pretty good definition and it says that if it's a notion or interpretation it is not reality and if it's reality it's not a notion or somebody's interpretation. The two are opposed to each other.

Take care....

rrobs · May 2, 2018

Lvcifer Invictvs said:
I see your point, but I still disagree. In Trinitarianism, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He still had doubts, experienced pain and despair. He took on the experience of separation from God, while still remaining sinless himself, and felt that God had forsook him. So his humanity still had to obey the will of the Father. But beyond obedience, the story of God becoming man is also powerful because it points to a God who loves his creation enough to become a part of of it by taking on the flesh of his creatures, sancifying it and redeeming it by uniting the Divine and the human. God himself becomes the reality of the future hope of Resurrection and the redemption of the entire cosmos by being the first to overcome death and be glorified in the flesh.

Catholics have Bibles and read them, you know. No one comes to the Bible without some sort of bias.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

If Jesus is God then we are God because Jesus was made just like us.

ChristineM · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
I trust you don't feel I'm attacking you personally. You are right, I know basically nothing about you or your life experiences, certainly not why you reject the church, so how could I possibly judge you. That is why I said I'm not asking you to believe a thing I say. By the way, I hope you understand my feeling about the churches mirrors yours. I too reject the churches. My whole point is that they have perverted the Bible message to the point where any intelligent individual would reject it. I'm just saying that if your sole source of knowledge of the Bible is from the churches, you don't really know what it says. There is certainly no shame in that, so please don't take it as thought I condemning you in any way. I give you credit for rejecting the churches. It's just too bad you didn't have the chance to hear the real story before getting indoctrinated into the insanity of church doctrine starting with God being 3 in 1 oil. It takes a miracle for someone to get past the church tradition and see God's word for what it is.

I never saw or heard George Washington any more than I've not seen or heard Jesus. The only knowledge I have of either one is from books. Why should I believe one and not the other?

Reality and interpretation are not the same thing at all. In fact there can only be one or the other. Here is a definition that came up with Google:

"the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

That's a pretty good definition and it says that if it's a notion or interpretation it is not reality and if it's reality it's not a notion or somebody's interpretation. The two are opposed to each other.

Take care....

My source of knowledge of the Bible is from the Bible.

Actually it seems to be you perverting the Bible, certainly thge church i attended taught the KJV as written. The fact that book (as most others are) dont represent the original book (or as close to the originally as is possible given no original exists) is moot.

Whether you heard JW is besides the point, evidence exists. Why believe? Because corroboratory and vcalid evidence exists for JW, no such evidence exists for JC being as described in the Bible. There is actually more evidence for him being the son of a roman soldiery who grew into an anarchist.

I never said thgey weee the same thing as in a pen and paper are not the same. Yes i know the definition of reality. Now prove your god really exists. Yet you claim he does, that is your interpretation.

Saint Frankenstein · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

If Jesus is God then we are God because Jesus was made just like us.

We're not God but we can be transformed by grace into a state akin to God.

Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) - Wikipedia

SomeRandom · May 2, 2018

ChristineM said:
33 > 330000000 != 1 very poetic

Nice. I would have gone with "it's over 9000!!!" But I'm a geek so....

rrobs · May 2, 2018

ChristineM said:
My source of knowledge of the Bible is from the Bible.

Actually it seems to be you perverting the Bible, certainly thge church i attended taught the KJV as written. The fact that book (as most others are) dont represent the original book (or as close to the originally as is possible given no original exists) is moot.

Whether you heard JW is besides the point, evidence exists. Why believe? Because corroboratory and vcalid evidence exists for JW, no such evidence exists for JC being as described in the Bible. There is actually more evidence for him being the son of a roman soldiery who grew into an anarchist.

I never said thgey weee the same thing as in a pen and paper are not the same. Yes i know the definition of reality. Now prove your god really exists. Yet you claim he does, that is your interpretation.

Sounds good.

BTW, I like your quote, "I started life with nothing and i still have most of it left."

rrobs · May 2, 2018

Lvcifer Invictvs said:
We're not God but we can be transformed by grace into a state akin to God.

Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) - Wikipedia

OK. I see your point. God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and Christ is in us (Col 1:27). Is that what you mean by being in a state akin to God?

How about this one:

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

How could a temptation that Jesus had be anything at all like it is when we are tempted, given that he knew he was God. Seems someone who knew they were God would have a completely different experience than a human being such as we all are. Slam dunk for God to avoid temptation (actually it says he can't even be tempted), but for a human it's a bit more complicated. It's possible for us to sin, but if Jesus was God it would be quite impossible for him to have sinned. Like I said, our experience would be nothing like his experience and Hebrews says he was tempted just like us.

The only logical way to clear up the mess is to simply say, as the Bible says, that he was the son of God and let it go at that. No need to make him a god-man. It simply creates untold amount of confusion, paradoxes, and contradictions to someone who wants to know about God.

Saint Frankenstein · May 2, 2018

rrobs said:
OK. I see your point. God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and Christ is in us (Col 1:27). Is that what you mean by being in a state akin to God?

How about this one:

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

How could a temptation that Jesus had be anything at all like it is when we are tempted, given that he knew he was God. Seems someone who knew they were God would have a completely different experience than a human being such as we all are. Slam dunk for God to avoid temptation (actually it says he can't even be tempted), but for a human it's a bit more complicated. It's possible for us to sin, but if Jesus was God it would be quite impossible for him to have sinned. Like I said, our experience would be nothing like his experience and Hebrews says he was tempted just like us.

The only logical way to clear up the mess is to simply say, as the Bible says, that he was the son of God and let it go at that. No need to make him a god-man. It simply creates untold amount of confusion, paradoxes, and contradictions to someone who wants to know about God.

I really think you should make a new thread with your concerns about Trinitarianism. I'm not an apologist and so am hardly a good person to defend it. There's many knowledgeable Christians on here, especially some of the Catholics.

Sunstone · May 2, 2018

JayToka said:
So what is religion then?

So far as I can see, most religions of any appreciable size at all must satisfy multiple kinds of people. They must, have "something in them for everyone" -- especially if they are going to endure.

For instance, they need to have something in them to meet the needs of some people for highly structured guidance, and also at the same time something to meet the needs of other people for freedom to explore, discover, and march to their own drummer, so to speak. On another level, they must meet the needs of society for some kind of social stabilization while at the same time allowing for necessary social changes. Then spiritual needs are another matter. And so on and so forth.

Thus they tend to be pretty complex, sometimes seemingly contradictory, or even murky things. Especially sometimes not so much in their scriptures but in the way they are practiced by various sorts of people.

rrobs · May 2, 2018

Lvcifer Invictvs said:
I really think you should make a new thread with your concerns about Trinitarianism. I'm not an apologist and so am hardly a good person to defend it. There's many knowledgeable Christians on here, especially some of the Catholics.

I guess we did get off topic. It's easy to do in forums.

Take care...

Trailblazer · May 2, 2018

JayToka said:
We all agree that there is only one God? Most religions, if not all, will say yes?, I'm assuming.
God has no religion. All agree I'm sure?.
So what is religion then?
Can anyone help me with the/an answer please?
Thanks.

In brief, religion is the Revelation that comes from God to Messengers of God (also known as Prophets). Religions are renewed by God in every subsequent age to keep up with man’s spiritual evolution.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

God is the All-Knowing Physician who knows what mankind needs. In every age, the Messengers bring a new message and new social teachings and laws to suit the times we are living in.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Trailblazer · May 2, 2018

JayToka said:
Which religion?

God created many religions.

Unfortunately, everyone believes that their religion is the only religion.

Trailblazer · May 2, 2018

JayToka said:
I was low, a while ago and while trawling the net, I came across a pic saying call to God if your low. I called out to God. At the time I was a total non believer in any religion/God. None. Still do not follow any of these man made religions now. But have a belief in God, in my own way. Called out. Next day, I was helped. Something happened that had never happened before. I was gobsmacked. Still am. Just confused over religion. Is it really needed?

It is nice to hear that God answers some people who call out.

I can hardly ever get Him on my cell...

Trailblazer · May 2, 2018

JayToka said:
But the major religions all have one God?

There is only One God.
All the major religions come from the One God, even though their followers don't all know that.

Religiously Confused

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer From Afar

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Wanderer From Afar

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Wanderer From Afar

Still learning to be wise

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer From Afar

De Diablo Del Fora

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member