PDA

View Full Version : Demographics -- Religion (2010-2011)




Kludge
07-22-2010, 12:41 PM
Demographics List (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2222435)

BenIsForRon
07-22-2010, 01:32 PM
You missed a pretty crucial one, which describes myself as well as many of the founders: Deist.

Kludge
07-22-2010, 01:48 PM
You missed a pretty crucial one, which describes myself as well as many of the founders: Deist.

Couldn´t a deist be just about anything?

Anti Federalist
07-22-2010, 01:50 PM
I think I'm going to join the Church of Kludge.

Do I have to shave my head?

ClayTrainor
07-22-2010, 01:51 PM
Atheist

BenIsForRon
07-22-2010, 01:51 PM
Couldn´t a deist be just about anything?

Well I'm not a christian, muslim, jew, buddhist, or hindu. All I know is that there is some form of higher, universal intelligence. All the religions pretend like they know more about it than they actually do.

ChaosControl
07-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Agnostic. :D

Kludge
07-22-2010, 01:56 PM
I think I'm going to join the Church of Kludge.

Do I have to shave my head?

No. However, there is a rigorous acceptance procedure which must be followed for potential members. You will need a camcorder, your voice, a guitar, two quarts of fresh blueberries, and maybe a few limes or lemons.


I just got accepted into his cult. Damn, it took three videos liar. Anyway, just so everyone knows what is good material to the honored one...

http://img263.imageshack.us/i/video0000.mp4/ (http://img263.imageshack.us/i/video0000.mp4/)
http://img25.imageshack.us/i/video0004z.mp4/ (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/video0004z.mp4/)
http://img8.imageshack.us/i/video0006o.mp4/ (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/video0006o.mp4/)

Yeah, yeah I'll do autographs later.

Humanae Libertas
07-22-2010, 02:20 PM
Why would you consider Mormonism a part of Christianity?

BuddyRey
07-22-2010, 02:20 PM
http://suspensoarg.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/quaker_1.jpg

charrob
07-22-2010, 02:31 PM
there is a subtle difference between two questions:

"Which religion do you most identify with?"
"Which religion do you think is the right/correct religion?"


'Christian- Protestant' was chosen but only because of the way the question was worded. ie. "Who do you most identify with?"

I most "identify" with being a Lutheran Christian because I was raised as a Lutheran. However, if the question had been phrased: "Which religion do you think is correct?" the answer in that situation would be as BenIsForRon stated: Deist.

The reason? Just because Jesus is the prophet I believe in, does not mean I think other prophets from other religions are not right for their peoples. Under one God, imo there could be many prophets. -Also don't agree with one Christian religion being more right than another Christian religion: they're all just interpretations, just as the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

So probably the wrong thing was chosen, but only because of the way the question was worded. The most important thing is i believe in a Supreme Being, but tend toward Christianity because of the way i was raised.

t0rnado
07-22-2010, 02:32 PM
http://skeptigator.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/automotivator.jpg

Kludge
07-22-2010, 02:39 PM
Why would you consider Mormonism a part of Christianity?

Mormon Jesus (Christ) was involved in the Endless Celestial Sex which in turn brought us into existence.

SovereignMN
07-22-2010, 02:41 PM
Christian - Protestant...more specifically, Baptist.

GunnyFreedom
07-26-2010, 09:25 AM
Hebrew-Roots Christian, AKA Messianic Believer, Messianic Jewish etc etc. More in common w/ Protestant Christians than any other flavor of modern Christians I suppose, but significantly different from all types of post-Roman Christianity. It assumes that "proper" Christianity is an evolution of pre-Christian Judaism rather than a whole new never-conceived-of-before thing. The largest reservoir of support for Messianism from mainstream Christians, actually comes from the Southern Baptists.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:10 AM
Wow, a lot of non-Protestant, non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians... not too much left there... My guess is that some people have no idea than non-denominational Christian is Protestant.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:12 AM
there is a subtle difference between two questions:

"Which religion do you most identify with?"
"Which religion do you think is the right/correct religion?"


'Christian- Protestant' was chosen but only because of the way the question was worded. ie. "Who do you most identify with?"

I most "identify" with being a Lutheran Christian because I was raised as a Lutheran. However, if the question had been phrased: "Which religion do you think is correct?" the answer in that situation would be as BenIsForRon stated: Deist.

The reason? Just because Jesus is the prophet I believe in, does not mean I think other prophets from other religions are not right for their peoples. Under one God, imo there could be many prophets. -Also don't agree with one Christian religion being more right than another Christian religion: they're all just interpretations, just as the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

So probably the wrong thing was chosen, but only because of the way the question was worded. The most important thing is i believe in a Supreme Being, but tend toward Christianity because of the way i was raised.

There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:15 AM
Why would you consider Mormonism a part of Christianity?

I agree, Mormonism denies the basic tenet of Christianity. That Jesus Christ is the one and only son of God, who came to earth, who died for our sins, offers free and unconditional salvation to all those who place their trust in him, and who is the sole way to commune with God.

Spider-Man
07-26-2010, 10:25 AM
Scientologist wasn't on the list.

ibaghdadi
07-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Only 2 Muslims? Where's Abe? And Marc?

Dr.3D
07-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Wow, a lot of non-Protestant, non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians... not too much left there... My guess is that some people have no idea than non-denominational Christian is Protestant.

Not necessarily. Many who claim to be non-denominational Christian, deny the Roman Catholic Church is Christian and thus do not protest against what is not Christian. They prefer to think of themselves as never having had anything to do with the self proclaimed "Catholic Church".

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:34 AM
Only 2 Muslims?

Battle of Tours. Battle of Lepanto. Those probably have something to do with it.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:38 AM
Not necessarily. Many who claim to be non-denominational Christian, deny the Roman Catholic Church is Christian and thus do not protest against what is not Christian. They prefer to think of themselves as never having had anything to do with the self proclaimed "Catholic Church".

I deny that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian, and I am a Protestant. I most certainly would protest that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian... If someone is a non-denominational and claim to have circumvented the Roman Church in their lineage, then they are either Copts, Armenians, Orthodox, or Waldensian/Vaudois in their lineage. I am just amazed to see so many of them here.

Dr.3D
07-26-2010, 10:48 AM
I deny that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian, and I am a Protestant. I most certainly would protest that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian... If someone is a non-denominational and claim to have circumvented the Roman Church in their lineage, then they are either Copts, Armenians, Orthodox, or Waldensian/Vaudois in their lineage. I am just amazed to see so many of them here.

Typically, a Protestant is just the offspring of the Roman Church, claiming to protest some of what the Roman Church does but not all of their practices. The distinction is that those claiming to be non-denominational are separating themselves completely from ever having had anything to do with the "Catholic Church".

To have circumvented the Roman Church is to disavow it ever had any legitimate existence and thus those who claim to be non-denominational have continued the practices of the original Church of God as it was before the third century.

fisharmor
07-26-2010, 10:51 AM
Change the title of the thread, because this has nothing to do with demographics.
There are no viable statistics that can come from this thread.

Case in point: I am a confessional Lutheran.
I chose "Christian - other" because it is the only choice that applies.
Please note that I did not choose the same as Charrob despite what you would expect - and this was before reading her post.
The simple reason is because the "Lutheran" banner she was raised under bears little resemblance to codified Lutheranism. They are fundamentally different. These differences have existed since the 16th century.

I can tell she was raised under this other brand because if she had been raised Lutheran as codified, she would realize that her belief in deism means that she does not in any way identify with Lutheranism, but with syncretism - currently the most popular type of Christianity, but one which I don't see in your poll.

If I we can get two people with the same label to produce two different results, this thread is therefore meaningless.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:56 AM
Typically, a Protestant is just the offspring of the Roman Church, claiming to protest some of what the Roman Church does but not all of their practices. The distinction is that those claiming to be non-denominational are separating themselves completely from ever having had anything to do with the "Catholic Church".

To have circumvented the Roman Church is to disavow it ever had any legitimate existence and thus those who claim to be non-denominational have continued the practices of the original Church of God as it was before the third century.

Actually, a Protestant is someone who recognizes that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church, who recognzes that salvation can be found in and through Christ alone, not in any artificially constructed sacrament, and who recognizes the Holy Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God. Such a person, including Baptists, Methodists (the original ones, not the Unitarians going around today proclaiming they are Methodists) Presbyterians, and Quakers, utterly reject Romish idolatry. They PROTEST against the Roman corruption of Christianity.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 10:57 AM
Change the title of the thread, because this has nothing to do with demographics.
There are no viable statistics that can come from this thread.

Case in point: I am a confessional Lutheran.
I chose "Christian - other" because it is the only choice that applies.
Please note that I did not choose the same as Charrob despite what you would expect - and this was before reading her post.
The simple reason is because the "Lutheran" banner she was raised under bears little resemblance to codified Lutheranism. They are fundamentally different. These differences have existed since the 16th century.

I can tell she was raised under this other brand because if she had been raised Lutheran as codified, she would realize that her belief in deism means that she does not in any way identify with Lutheranism, but with syncretism - currently the most popular type of Christianity, but one which I don't see in your poll.

If I we can get two people with the same label to produce two different results, this thread is therefore meaningless.

Confessional Lutherans are by definition Protestants.

fisharmor
07-26-2010, 11:07 AM
Confessional Lutherans are by definition Protestants.

Right, I agree, but you must see my point there.
Charrob marked Christian-Protestant when your description wasn't even on her radar, and in fact she believes quite the opposite of what you describe because under her definition Roman Catholicism is simply another avenue to God.

I marked Christian-Other because I know if I choose Protestant then I get lumped with Charrob.

From what I can tell you and I agree more than any other two people on this thread so far, and it would make more sense to lump us together somehow: yet it wouldn't take us more than five minutes to find a point of serious disagreement.

Even if some categorization was possible, I don't even really see its utility in the context of liberty.

Dr.3D
07-26-2010, 11:08 AM
Actually, a Protestant is someone who recognizes that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church, who recognzes that salvation can be found in and through Christ alone, not in any artificially constructed sacrament, and who recognizes the Holy Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God. Such a person, including Baptists, Methodists (the original ones, not the Unitarians going around today proclaiming they are Methodists) Presbyterians, and Quakers, utterly reject Romish idolatry. They PROTEST against the Roman corruption of Christianity.

Yes, but those Protestant denominations still accept many of the Pagan beliefs passed down to them from the paganized Church of Rome. Those claiming to be non-denominational reject not only the idolatry but much more of the practices of Roman Catholicism. My brother, a Methodist minister, tells me the Methodist Church sprang from the Roman Catholic Church as did all of the Protestant denominations.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 11:12 AM
Right, I agree, but you must see my point there.
Charrob marked Christian-Protestant when your description wasn't even on her radar, and in fact she believes quite the opposite of what you describe because under her definition Roman Catholicism is simply another avenue to God.

I marked Christian-Other because I know if I choose Protestant then I get lumped with Charrob.

From what I can tell you and I agree more than any other two people on this thread so far, and it would make more sense to lump us together somehow: yet it wouldn't take us more than five minutes to find a point of serious disagreement.

Even if some categorization was possible, I don't even really see its utility in the context of liberty.

Sure, it's certainly possible we could find each other at the other's throat... I guess I was just a little stunned to see a confessional lutheran deny being a protestant! To me that's like a LCMS pastor getting up and saying that A Mighty Fortress Is Our God is a papist anthem!!!

I agree with you about the utility of polls like this though...

GunnyFreedom
07-26-2010, 11:15 AM
Wow, a lot of non-Protestant, non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians... not too much left there... My guess is that some people have no idea than non-denominational Christian is Protestant.

There are some, such as Messianic Judaism and Church of the Nazarene, who predate Roman Catholicism. Would the RCC be called a "protestant" of those denominations? :D

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 11:21 AM
There are some, such as Messianic Judaism and Church of the Nazarene, who predate Roman Catholicism. Would the RCC be called a "protestant" of those denominations? :D

Where was the Church of the Nazarene and Messianc Judaism for the 1200 years preceeding the reformation again? I'm guessing the same place the Baptists were, who by the way, were the original Church.

GunnyFreedom
07-26-2010, 11:31 AM
Where was the Church of the Nazarene and Messianc Judaism for the 1200 years preceeding the reformation again? I'm guessing the same place the Baptists were, who by the way, were the original Church.

o.O

James the Apostle didn't exist them? How about James's Messianic synagogue in Jerusalem? I take it that you do not consider Josephus to be a proper historical authority? :confused:

The Romanized version of Christianity sprang from two factors, 1) the Emperor Constantine's decision that he could better conquer the planet if he converted the empire to Christiandom with the sweep of a pen, and 2) the heavy Roman persecution of Jewish people which caused most Christian groups to abandon the "Jewish trappings" of the faith, and those who chose to retain the mandated feasts to go underground lest they be used as torches to light the chariot races.

When I speak of Messianic Judaism as being the original expression of Christianity, I am not making it up out of pride, but referring to actual history. Even the Southern Baptist seminary I attended taught the correct history here.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 11:41 AM
o.O

James the Apostle didn't exist them? How about James's Messianic synagogue in Jerusalem? I take it that you do not consider Josephus to be a proper historical authority? :confused:

The Romanized version of Christianity sprang from two factors, 1) the Emperor Constantine's decision that he could better conquer the planet if he converted the empire to Christiandom with the sweep of a pen, and 2) the heavy Roman persecution of Jewish people which caused most Christian groups to abandon the "Jewish trappings" of the faith, and those who chose to retain the mandated feasts to go underground lest they be used as torches to light the chariot races.

When I speak of Messianic Judaism as being the original expression of Christianity, I am not making it up out of pride, but referring to actual history. Even the Southern Baptist seminary I attended taught the correct history here.

I have read every surviving work of Josephus, and I do consider him to be a proper historical source. James the Apostle certainly did exist. ;)

I'm well aware of what convinced the great mass of people in the Roman world to adopt Christianity... and it wasn't faith. The Apostle Paul, (do you believe he existed?) repudiated and corrected the Messianic Judiastic maintenance of Judaism's trappings. There are no feasts mandated by Scripture. Sorry.

I don't doubt that Messianic Judaism was an original expression of Christianity. The Scripture and the Gospel was spread first to the Jews, and afterward to the gentiles. Fortunately however, Paul, and Peter following an initial reluctance, emphasised the need to remove the extra-biblical restrictions the Messinic Jews attempted to foist on the Christian Church.

GunnyFreedom
07-26-2010, 11:57 AM
I have read every surviving work of Josephus, and I do consider him to be a proper historical source. James the Apostle certainly did exist. ;)

I'm well aware of what convinced the great mass of people in the Roman world to adopt Christianity... and it wasn't faith. The Apostle Paul, (do you believe he existed?) repudiated and corrected the Messianic Judiastic maintenance of Judaism's trappings. There are no feasts mandated by Scripture. Sorry.

LMAO, I don't consider "just making stuff up" to be a proper form of debate, but if it floats your boat. :D

Was Paul violating hos own teachings when he himself plus two he sponsored undertook the Nazarite Vows?

Was Moses lying when he wrote that Elohim commanded the observation of the feasts forever and ever?

Was the Messiah deluded when He celebrated Purim?

Was Paul on crack when he taught that the Law was a good and holy thing whilst legalism was (and always had been) evil?

Sorry John, but you are just making nonsense up out of thin air here, and I can only surmise that it's the pride and arrogance of "being always right, especially when you are wrong" talking, as it often does when you post.


I don't doubt that Messianic Judaism was an original expression of Christianity. The Scripture and the Gospel was spread first to the Jews, and afterward to the gentiles. Fortunately however, Paul, and Peter following an initial reluctance, emphasised the need to remove the extra-biblical restrictions the Messinic Jews attempted to foist on the Christian Church.

EXTRABIBLICAL being the key word. Those same extrabiblical restrictions were always wrong, even in the day of Moses. Those same extrabiblical restrictions were what the Messiah railed against during his ministry.

And who is guilty of extrabiblical restrictions?

Isn't it the Baptists who have a thing for "no drinking, no dancing" when the Bible clearly recommends some wine in moderation, and dancing for the Lord?

The Pharisees and the Saducees were never the proper expression of pre-Messianic Judaism. The closest group to proper and Biblical at the time were the Essenes, of which John the Baptist was almost certainly a member.

Messianic Judiasm, therefore, as demonstrated by James's understanding, is the outgrowth of the Essene Judaism, and not the failed Pharisees and Saducees.

But by all means, John, do comfort yourself by speaking authoritatively without actual knowledge of the basic facts and histories lmao. If it helps you to sleep at night it can't be all bad huh? :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
07-26-2010, 12:25 PM
You missed a pretty crucial one, which describes myself as well as many of the founders: Deist.

You may be a Deist, but with exception of one, the Founders were NOT.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 12:51 PM
LMAO, I don't consider "just making stuff up" to be a proper form of debate, but if it floats your boat. :D


Right back at you Sir. You're adding to Holy Scripture... you should consider God's warning for people who do that. Revelation 22:18-19 states: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." You should remember that.


Was Paul violating hos own teachings when he himself plus two he sponsored undertook the Nazarite Vows?


Paul, when he was converted following his "illumination" on the road to Damascas, was released from the Hebrew law, which existed to point towards the redeeming grace and salvation of Jesus Christ.


Was Moses lying when he wrote that Elohim commanded the observation of the feasts forever and ever?


Moses lying? No, the commandments were designed to point towards Christ. Once Christ came, these signposts' purpose was fulfilled.


Was the Messiah deluded when He celebrated Purim?


No, he HAD NOT YET DIED ON THE CROSS to fulfill the law.


Was Paul on crack when he taught that the Law was a good and holy thing whilst legalism was (and always had been) evil?

I never said that the law is a bad thing. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to condemn it. The law is a good thing, but we are no longer under the law--for it was created to point towards Christ, but he having come, its purpose is fulfilled.


Sorry John, but you are just making nonsense up out of thin air here, and I can only surmise that it's the pride and arrogance of "being always right, especially when you are wrong" talking, as it often does when you post.

Sorry Gunny. You are spouting off here in a manner wholly unsubstantiated by Scripture. I regret donating to your campaign. Insults are sad things buddy, especially coming from you.


EXTRABIBLICAL being the key word. Those same extrabiblical restrictions were always wrong, even in the day of Moses. Those same extrabiblical restrictions were what the Messiah railed against during his ministry.

The Pharisees "kept the whole law". Paul was a Pharisee... not an extra-biblical Pharisee, but one who was a Hebrew of Hebrews. Acts 23:6 states: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Paul was thus liberated from the law by Jesus Christ. Romans 7:6 states: "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."


And who is guilty of extrabiblical restrictions?

Isn't it the Baptists who have a thing for "no drinking, no dancing" when the Bible clearly recommends some wine in moderation, and dancing for the Lord?


I don't speak for all Baptists, just as I assume you do not speak for all Messianic Jews who refuse to eat pork sausages.


The Pharisees and the Saducees were never the proper expression of pre-Messianic Judaism. The closest group to proper and Biblical at the time were the Essenes, of which John the Baptist was almost certainly a member.

The Pharisees kept the whole law. As written. I am aware of John the Baptist, and the Essenes, who had a heavy influence on the original, Baptist churches throughout the Med basin.


Messianic Judiasm, therefore, as demonstrated by James's understanding, is the outgrowth of the Essene Judaism, and not the failed Pharisees and Saducees.

Not true. Remember how Paul condemned the Messianic Jews in Galations 5:6 for insisting on circumcision??? There is no benefit to circumcison with Christ: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Thus we are freed from the old law. James 1:25 states: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Recall Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."


But by all means, John, do comfort yourself by speaking authoritatively without actual knowledge of the basic facts and histories lmao. If it helps you to sleep at night it can't be all bad huh? :rolleyes:

More petty insults. Why are you so hatefully responding to me? You simply are demonstrating that you do not have Christ's love in your heart.

Spider-Man
07-26-2010, 01:11 PM
Oh, you guys.

GunnyFreedom
07-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Again, as usual, your arrogance prevents you from civil discussion. How many people have to point this out to you before you take stock of yourself and reevaluate the way you interact with other people?


Right back at you Sir. You're adding to Holy Scripture... you should consider God's warning for people who do that. Revelation 22:18-19 states: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." You should remember that.

Fortunately, I am not the one adding or subtracting things from the scriptures. Is Christmas in the Bible? well, no. If you celebrate Christmas then you are adding to the Bible. I do not, therefore I am not. Is the feast of Tabernacles in the Bible? well, yes. Is the feast of Tabernacles commanded by God to be observed by all peoples for all time, including by gentiles, including both before and after the second coming of Messiah? Well, yes it is. If you do not observe Tabernacles, then you are subtracting from the scriptures.

Not that you will actually bother to consider this, that is simply not your way, John. I have seen it time and again that you would rather be right in your own eyes than actually correct.

Note also that I have never tried to work on 'changing' the way people celebrate, I am simply answering your charge of my having added and subtracted from the scripture by demonstrating that I do not, and you actually do.


Paul, when he was converted following his "illumination" on the road to Damascas, was released from the Hebrew law, which existed to point towards the redeeming grace and salvation of Jesus Christ.

"Hebrew Law" is simply a description of the nature of God. Are you saying that God has changed or become irrelevant? I think not. The Law has neither changed nor gone irrelevant. Instead, our relationship with the Law has changed through the advent of Messiah and become "internalized" just as the model of the Temple was transfigured into the eternal realm upon the death and resurrection of Messiah.

Paul demonstrated this clearly when he instructed Timothy on the meaning of "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." This was LONG LONG after his conversion, nearer towards his execution for a point of fact, and he was still referring to the Law as guiding our actions.


Moses lying? No, the commandments were designed to point towards Christ. Once Christ came, these signposts' purpose was fulfilled.

Messiah is the embodiment of the entire word of God, which includes the commandments. Nowhere in the scriptures does it speak of the Law becoming obsolete or irrelevant.


No, he HAD NOT YET DIED ON THE CROSS to fulfill the law.

Since you below accuse me of "not having the love of Christ in my heart" (which is hilarious coming from someone as prideful and arrogant as you are, by the way) I will now return the favor not in the way of being judgmental (as you were below) but in the way of demonstrating the deeply flawed nature of your passing judgment. It is likely to be true, but it is not offered as a judgment, but rather in the hopes of demonstrating that you are judging those matters which only God is capable of judging.

Given that you are only capable of seeing time as a one-way street, and thus are constrained within the paradigm of temporality, it is evident that you have yet to be infused with the eternal nature and perspective of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, being without the internal perspective of the Holy Spirit you are not a member of the Body.

Doesn't that make you angry? It should. :D

But I know how you think already. You will consider that it is OK for YOU to pass judgment on the eternal nature of MY soul, because you are you, and you are allowed to pass such judgments, but when I make a similar judgment it is wrong, because I am not you, and only you are allowed to pass such judgments.

I offered the above only as a demonstration of the iniquity you offered below, and not as a statement of fact, unlike what you have done. I pass no such judgment; however we are told that we can identify the nature of a person by the fruit they bear. We do not pick pomegranates from thorn bushes, nor does a salty spring divulge fresh water. By your fruits I can know your nature, and whether I should trust your judgement.

Arrogance, pride, hatred, contentiousness, wrath, strife, these are all fruits of the flesh and not of the Spirit.


I never said that the law is a bad thing. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to condemn it. The law is a good thing, but we are no longer under the law--for it was created to point towards Christ, but he having come, its purpose is fulfilled.

It would probably help if you read Hebrew and Greek, as I attended the Seminary to study. It has been a long time since I was embroiled in theological polemics, but suffice it to say that you are regurgitating the propaganda of a church that has forgotten the Scriptural teachings.

Messiah is the OBJECT of the Law, not the conclusion of it. τελος means "purpose" or "goal" rather than the destruction thereof.

Have you forgotten that it was Messiah HIMSELF who said in Matthew 5:17-19 that "“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

Neither heaven nor the Earth has passed away. Therefore, those who anull the law and teach others to do the same, they may go to heaven, but will be counted among the least.


Sorry Gunny. You are spouting off here in a manner wholly unsubstantiated by Scripture. I regret donating to your campaign. Insults are sad things buddy, especially coming from you.

I read the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek, and I have read it cover to cover scores of times. I went to a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- one of the most conservative seminaries int he United States and I was not shy about sharing my views, and I ran into zero, literally zero professors who disagreed with my understanding of theology, and only a few who disagreed with my understanding of practice.

Therefore it seems to me that you are the one disagreeing not only with myself and the scripture, but the most conservative and biblical Southern Baptist theological seminary in the United States today.

Regarding the donation, this is the second time you have tried to guilt me with regards to your donation based on a disagreement wholly irrelevant to the office.

How much did you give? I'll gladly give it back since you regret giving it to me. I'd rather not take the money of an arrogant liar in any case. Last time you made this threat you refused to take it back. This time I am not letting you refuse. If you think that will make me pretend to believe your fabrications or accept your arrogance or ignore your offenses then you are sorely mistaken.

I will uphold truth not only in religion but in government even if I am the only human being on earth to do so. You can't scare me by trying to crap on my campaign whining about a donation.

How much did you give? If you are going to keep saying this "I regret donating to your campaign" garbage every time you disagree with me then I don't want your filthy lucre.

I'm sorry, John, but you can NOT make me abandon truth or principles whether you gave $1, $4000, or $100,000. I don't care. I can't be bought. That's why I will never get lobbyist money.

If you are trying to be a lobbyist here and ignore your arrogance and your outright wrongness, ABOUT RELIGION, just because you happened to contribute to my campaign then I don't want your money.


The Pharisees "kept the whole law". Paul was a Pharisee... not an extra-biblical Pharisee, but one who was a Hebrew of Hebrews. cts 23:6 states: "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Paul was thus liberated from the law by Jesus Christ. Romans 7:6 states: "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

The Pharisees legalistically "kept the whole law." Legalism was wrong the day Moses penned it. legalism was NEVER right. If the Pharisees were doing things so correctly for their era, then why did God-Incarnate Yeshua Moshiach castigate them so vehemently?

You are speaking nonsense.

the Spirit of the Law has always been life, and the letter of the Law has always been death. It was set up that way from the beginning, and it was the mistake of the Jews to have ignored the Spirit in favor of the letter in the first place.

Paul was simply teaching the proper relationship to the law that was SUPPOSED to have been observed from day one, but almost never was.

You have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the context from your own quote.

Romans 7:7-13 states: " What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful."

Are you saying that since Messiah died and was raised again, now it's OK to covet?

Obviously not.

Look at the context of Romans 7. LOOK AT IT. If covetousness is still a sin, then the Law is still valid. If the Law has become invalid, then covetousness is no longer a sin.

The Law has not changed. It has not become obsolete. Messiah is the embodiment of the Law, and by following after His example we are fulfilling the Law.

The Law was NEVER intended to be taken legalistically as the Pharisees and Saducees did, it was intended to be taken spiritually as the Essenes did.

Messiah did not come to scream at people who were doing things the way they were SUPPOSED to , and to state otherwise to to make God out to be schizophrenic, a kind of blasphemy. Messiah came and screamed at people who were doing it WRONG.


I don't speak for all Baptists, just as I assume you do not speak for all Messianic Jews who refuse to eat pork sausages.

The people of God are no longer called to separate themselves into an insular group as they were prior to Messiah's arrival, but to spread out into the whole world whilst remaining holy in God. Therefore the token of separation was removed as we see when Peter was told by God to eat such animals has had been formerly declared unclean.

The prohibition against pork was given as a token of separation from the nations, a separation that no longer exists. God said "they shall be unclean TO YOU." And they were. Once the separation between Israel and the nations was removed, so was the prohibition on 'unclean' foods.


The Pharisees kept the whole law. As written. I am aware of John the Baptist, and the Essenes, who had a heavy influence on the original, Baptist churches throughout the Med basin.



Not true. Remember how Paul condemned the Messianic Jews in Galations 5:6 for insisting on circumcision??? There is no benefit to circumcison with Christ: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Thus we are freed from the old law. James 1:25 states: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Recall Galations 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Circumcision is still required, only folowing the model of transfiguration it is no longer a circumcision of the flesh but OF THE HEART. Paul chastised the Galatians for taking what ought to have been spiritual and making it merely physical. The requirement for circumcision has not changed. Paul never said that circumcising the flesh was in and of itself wrong, but to do so in the flesh while ignoring the spiritual reality was wrong.

Of what profit is a physical circumcision when your heart remains hardened? NONE! As Isaiah said, and Messiah repeated, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

If you are not circumcised of the heart (ie, if you harden your heart when challenged by truth, such as you are doing right now) then you are uncircumcised of heart, and therefore are in violation of the requirements of God and the Holy Spirit.


More petty insults. Why are you so hatefully responding to me? You simply are demonstrating that you do not have Christ's love in your heart.

Perhaps you need to look into the mirror a little more deeply, John. You are, literally, the most insulting member of RPF's that has not yet been banned. How about you take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in mine?

Spider-Man
07-26-2010, 02:13 PM
I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight.

ibaghdadi
07-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Battle of Tours. Battle of Lepanto. Those probably have something to do with it.

Eh?

The master troll strikes again, I see.

John Taylor
07-26-2010, 02:18 PM
Eh?

The master troll strikes again, I see.

That's the reason why there are s few Muslims in the United States. That's a fact. It was a value neutral statement. Take it easy Hamas-Cheerleader.

amy31416
07-26-2010, 02:34 PM
That's the reason why there are s few Muslims in the United States. That's a fact. It was a value neutral statement. Take it easy Hamas-Cheerleader.

:confused:

Though it is amusing to see someone defend something so much and so emotionally that he stops making sense.

Kotin
07-26-2010, 02:44 PM
That's the reason why there are s few Muslims in the United States. That's a fact. It was a value neutral statement. Take it easy Hamas-Cheerleader.

Cya in a few days.

amy31416
07-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Cya in a few days.

Woot for Kotin!

Dr.3D
07-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Cya in a few days.

Oh crap... and just when the show was getting interesting.

WaltM
07-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Why would you consider Mormonism a part of Christianity?

because they say they are

WaltM
07-26-2010, 02:56 PM
:confused:

Though it is amusing to see someone defend something so much and so emotionally that he stops making sense.

Hamas cheerleader? LOL

Yeah, that's very amusing

Anti Federalist
07-26-2010, 03:28 PM
Cya in a few days.

I'm LoLing here...this reads like an "All in the Family" script...

The Jewish moderator bans the Christian poster for making off color Muslim statements.

JT is clearly intelligent and passionate about what he believes, but he does not persuade, and in trying to do so, comes off as an arrogant prick and being abrasive when there is no need to be.

nobody's_hero
07-26-2010, 03:31 PM
Thomas Paine's brand of Deism. But, it's not really an ideology. Just a belief in God without the frills and standards.

pcosmar
07-26-2010, 03:34 PM
I'm LoLing here...this reads like an "All in the Family" script...

The Jewish moderator bans the Christian poster for making off color Muslim statements.

JT is clearly intelligent and passionate about what he believes, but he does not persuade, and in trying to do so, comes off as an arrogant prick and being abrasive when there is no need to be.

Ba dum bum Ding.

http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/Sound%20Effect%20-%20Rimshot.wav

JohnEngland
07-26-2010, 03:35 PM
I clicked the one of Judge Napolitano and Thomas Woods!

Anti Federalist
07-26-2010, 03:40 PM
Ba dum bum Ding.

http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/Sound%20Effect%20-%20Rimshot.wav

Or maybe...

http://sadtrombone.com/

Rifleman
07-26-2010, 05:36 PM
I am a Reformed Baptist.

Generally would consider myself a Calvinist or at least a believer in "the Doctrines of Grace".

John Taylor
07-29-2010, 10:03 AM
Again, as usual, your arrogance prevents you from civil discussion. How many people have to point this out to you before you take stock of yourself and reevaluate the way you interact with other people?


I am not the one here crowing about having gone to some Southern Baptist seminary (liberal Baptists who went south doctrinally decades ago).


Fortunately, I am not the one adding or subtracting things from the scriptures. Is Christmas in the Bible? well, no. If you celebrate Christmas then you are adding to the Bible. I do not, therefore I am not. Is the feast of Tabernacles in the Bible? well, yes. Is the feast of Tabernacles commanded by God to be observed by all peoples for all time, including by gentiles, including both before and after the second coming of Messiah? Well, yes it is. If you do not observe Tabernacles, then you are subtracting from the scriptures.

I agree with this.


Not that you will actually bother to consider this, that is simply not your way, John. I have seen it time and again that you would rather be right in your own eyes than actually correct.

Note also that I have never tried to work on 'changing' the way people celebrate, I am simply answering your charge of my having added and subtracted from the scripture by demonstrating that I do not, and you actually do.

Where again have I added one jot or tittle to the Word of God? You are re-adding the fulfilled Law, in direct contradiction to the revealed Word of God.



"Hebrew Law" is simply a description of the nature of God. Are you saying that God has changed or become irrelevant? I think not. The Law has neither changed nor gone irrelevant. Instead, our relationship with the Law has changed through the advent of Messiah and become "internalized" just as the model of the Temple was transfigured into the eternal realm upon the death and resurrection of Messiah.

The Hebrew Law is not a discription of the nature of God, it reveals one portion of his nature. A portion which was fulfilled by Jesus Christ when he came and died on the cross.


Paul demonstrated this clearly when he instructed Timothy on the meaning of "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." This was LONG LONG after his conversion, nearer towards his execution for a point of fact, and he was still referring to the Law as guiding our actions.

Of course this is a repetition of the Mosaic Law. Much of what is in the Mosaic Law is excellent, and should be applied in our lives today. HOWEVER: Paul was not refering to the Hebrew Law guiding our actions, he was talking about the principle of rewarding those who do the work.



Messiah is the embodiment of the entire word of God, which includes the commandments. Nowhere in the scriptures does it speak of the Law becoming obsolete or irrelevant.

Sure it does, Scripture states that Christ fulfilled the law.


Since you below accuse me of "not having the love of Christ in my heart" (which is hilarious coming from someone as prideful and arrogant as you are, by the way) I will now return the favor not in the way of being judgmental (as you were below) but in the way of demonstrating the deeply flawed nature of your passing judgment. It is likely to be true, but it is not offered as a judgment, but rather in the hopes of demonstrating that you are judging those matters which only God is capable of judging.

Only God can judge the heart, so again I reproach you in Christian love.


Given that you are only capable of seeing time as a one-way street, and thus are constrained within the paradigm of temporality, it is evident that you have yet to be infused with the eternal nature and perspective of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, being without the internal perspective of the Holy Spirit you are not a member of the Body.

Doesn't that make you angry? It should. :D

I had no idea you could string together such a torrent of blabber. Bravo. I pray for God to give me clarity, and to reveal to me the meaning of His inspired Holy Word.


But I know how you think already. You will consider that it is OK for YOU to pass judgment on the eternal nature of MY soul, because you are you, and you are allowed to pass such judgments, but when I make a similar judgment it is wrong, because I am not you, and only you are allowed to pass such judgments.

I have NEVER passed judgment on the eternal home of your soul. As for the nature. I don't need to, it is like mine, a sin nature which needs to accept Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.


I offered the above only as a demonstration of the iniquity you offered below, and not as a statement of fact, unlike what you have done. I pass no such judgment; however we are told that we can identify the nature of a person by the fruit they bear. We do not pick pomegranates from thorn bushes, nor does a salty spring divulge fresh water. By your fruits I can know your nature, and whether I should trust your judgement.

Arrogance, pride, hatred, contentiousness, wrath, strife, these are all fruits of the flesh and not of the Spirit.

They are not, which is why we are commanded to speak to one another in Christian humility, kindliness, and compassion.



It would probably help if you read Hebrew and Greek, as I attended the Seminary to study. It has been a long time since I was embroiled in theological polemics, but suffice it to say that you are regurgitating the propaganda of a church that has forgotten the Scriptural teachings.

What a coincidence, I do!!! Having gone to an Independent Baptist Seminary myself for some time, I have studied both Greek and Hebrew. Your position is entirely untenable Scripturally. I am seeking to correct you in a spirit of Christian love.


Messiah is the OBJECT of the Law, not the conclusion of it. τελος means "purpose" or "goal" rather than the destruction thereof.

Of course, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.


Have you forgotten that it was Messiah HIMSELF who said in Matthew 5:17-19 that "“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

EXACTLY! "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Until all the law was fulfilled by the death and resurection of Jesus Christ it was in effect 100%.



Neither heaven nor the Earth has passed away. Therefore, those who anull the law and teach others to do the same, they may go to heaven, but will be counted among the least.

False interpretation and misconstruction of the passage.


I read the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek, and I have read it cover to cover scores of times. I went to a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- one of the most conservative seminaries int he United States and I was not shy about sharing my views, and I ran into zero, literally zero professors who disagreed with my understanding of theology, and only a few who disagreed with my understanding of practice.

I have read the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek as well, and while I have not read it as often as I wish, I can also say that, as someone who went to an Independent Baptist Theological Seminary, I too did not find a solitary professor who disagreed with my understanding of practice.


Therefore it seems to me that you are the one disagreeing not only with myself and the scripture, but the most conservative and biblical Southern Baptist theological seminary in the United States today.

The Southern Baptist Convention went liberal decades ago. I stand with the Word of God, regardless of what a convention decides.

Regarding the donation, this is the second time you have tried to guilt me with regards to your donation based on a disagreement wholly irrelevant to the office.


How much did you give? I'll gladly give it back since you regret giving it to me. I'd rather not take the money of an arrogant liar in any case. Last time you made this threat you refused to take it back. This time I am not letting you refuse. If you think that will make me pretend to believe your fabrications or accept your arrogance or ignore your offenses then you are sorely mistaken.

After you open a conversation with an insult, you have a lot of gall to assert that I have been anything other than respectful in my interactions with you here.


I will uphold truth not only in religion but in government even if I am the only human being on earth to do so. You can't scare me by trying to crap on my campaign whining about a donation.

Oh the martyr! I feel the same way. I wasn't saying I disagree with any of the political stances you have taken. When I labored for Ron in NC in 2007, I did not notice anything which would have indicated you were anything other than a fine individual. I was briefly upset because you took it upon yourself to personally insult me, on this, a matter unconnected to the purposes of this forum.


I'm sorry, John, but you can NOT make me abandon truth or principles whether you gave $1, $4000, or $100,000. I don't care. I can't be bought. That's why I will never get lobbyist money.

I have never asked a single person on this earth to abandon truth and true principles. I will use Scripture to correct an errant brother if and when God gives me the ability.


If you are trying to be a lobbyist here and ignore your arrogance and your outright wrongness, ABOUT RELIGION, just because you happened to contribute to my campaign then I don't want your money.

God alone knows the true and entire meaning of His revealed Word, so for you or any other person to claim a monopoly on Biblical interpretation is a heinous sin. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to force generations of gentiles to live beneath it.


The Pharisees legalistically "kept the whole law." Legalism was wrong the day Moses penned it. legalism was NEVER right. If the Pharisees were doing things so correctly for their era, then why did God-Incarnate Yeshua Moshiach castigate them so vehemently?

The Pharisees kept the law, but their hearts were not turned towards God. Instead of rejoicing over the raising of Lazarus, they attempted to kill the Son of God.

You are speaking nonsense.


the Spirit of the Law has always been life, and the letter of the Law has always been death. It was set up that way from the beginning, and it was the mistake of the Jews to have ignored the Spirit in favor of the letter in the first place.

Precisely.


Paul was simply teaching the proper relationship to the law that was SUPPOSED to have been observed from day one, but almost never was.

Sure, that is my conclusion as well, but that does not alter te Biblical fact that Christ's death and resurection fulfilled the old law. As James 2:10 states: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."


You have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the context from your own quote.

Nonsense.


Romans 7:7-13 states: " What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful."

Sure, Paul recognized his sin through the law!!! That is how people came to salvation, through faith, prior to the coming of Christ.


Are you saying that since Messiah died and was raised again, now it's OK to covet?

Obviously not.

Obviously not.


Look at the context of Romans 7. LOOK AT IT. If covetousness is still a sin, then the Law is still valid. If the Law has become invalid, then covetousness is no longer a sin.

The law is fulfilled. Surely covetousness remains a sin, but that does not mean we live under the Hebrew law.


The Law has not changed. It has not become obsolete. Messiah is the embodiment of the Law, and by following after His example we are fulfilling the Law.

CHRIST ALONE FULFILLED THE LAW. ONCE. We can do nothing to fulfill the law ourselves. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."


The Law was NEVER intended to be taken legalistically as the Pharisees and Saducees did, it was intended to be taken spiritually as the Essenes did.

I agree with your analysis of legalism.


The people of God are no longer called to separate themselves into an insular group as they were prior to Messiah's arrival, but to spread out into the whole world whilst remaining holy in God. Therefore the token of separation was removed as we see when Peter was told by God to eat such animals has had been formerly declared unclean.

The prohibition against pork was given as a token of separation from the nations, a separation that no longer exists. God said "they shall be unclean TO YOU." And they were. Once the separation between Israel and the nations was removed, so was the prohibition on 'unclean' foods.

So, the law was fulfilled.



Circumcision is still required, only folowing the model of transfiguration it is no longer a circumcision of the flesh but OF THE HEART. Paul chastised the Galatians for taking what ought to have been spiritual and making it merely physical. The requirement for circumcision has not changed. Paul never said that circumcising the flesh was in and of itself wrong, but to do so in the flesh while ignoring the spiritual reality was wrong.

Of course, this is my entire point. It is the internal obedience to Christ, not an act of obeying the old, long fulfilled law, which is required.


Perhaps you need to look into the mirror a little more deeply, John. You are, literally, the most insulting member of RPF's that has not yet been banned. How about you take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in mine?

I have never claimed to be without my faults. I have many, and am a most imperfect vessel. I recognize this, and pray daily for God to work great things in my heart. You insult me for opposing an unscriptural heretical teaching. Well, God will be the judge.

GunnyFreedom
07-29-2010, 01:49 PM
I am not the one here crowing about having gone to some Southern Baptist seminary (liberal Baptists who went south doctrinally decades ago).

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The only seminary in America more conservative than SEBTS is Bob Jones university.


I agree with this.



Where again have I added one jot or tittle to the Word of God? You are re-adding the fulfilled Law, in direct contradiction to the revealed Word of God.Christmas is not in the Bible. If you celebrate it then you have added. Tabernacles is in the Bible. if you fail to celebrate it, then you have subtracted.

Again, when given the choice of several meanings for a word, you choose the meaning which does not have support in the originals. Messiah is the GOAL of the law, not the destruction of it. Messiah MADE THE LAW COMPLETE, He did not abolish it.

You really do need to pick up some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, as most of our churches are being lied to.

Of course we were warned that this would happen. The falling away.

The only question is will you be like Josiah who embraced the truth upon learning it, or Nebuchadnezzar who had to be brought low first.

Let's take a closer look at the feast of Tabernacles, for instance.

We learn about the feast in Leviticus 23

Leviticus 23:34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.

Leviticus 23:41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.

FOR EVER (Hebrew: ha olam)

So when God says 'forever' does it really mean 'forever,' or should we believe John Taylor who says that forever doesn't actually mean forever?

Let's see what Zechariah has to say about it then. Zechariah 14 reveals a prophecy of the world after that Messiah has returned in the second coming:

Demonstrated:

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Thus we see that this prophecy concerns what the world will look like AFTER the Messiah has already returned. Now, what does it say about that time?

Zechariah 14:16-19 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Therefore, we see that AFTER the second coming, when the Lord is God over all the earth, every nation on earth will be required to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles or they will get no rain for an entire year.

What could make God so angry that He would do that? Maybe because His alleged worshipers have been flipping Him the bird for the last 1500 years by refusing His commandments?

But oh I know the talking points, the Tanakh (Old Testament) doesn't really mean anything anymore, right?

Well, when Messiah said “If any one thirst, let him come to Me and drink” in John 7:37, it makes very little sense without the background of the Feast of Tabernacles, which He was ten participating in and celebrating. Messiah is very expression of God Himself, and if we tabernacle in Him, though we are in the wilderness of this world, we will abide and thrive in the living waters of truth.

Following the pattern, we must pour ourselves out upon the altar of God whereupon the streams of living water will flow from us like wellsprings.

Revelation chapter 7 is also a description of celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, given the themes of palm branches and tribulation. Rev 7:15 literally translated reads: “The One seated upon the throne will erect a booth over them with His presence.”

So your position is that while all the people of God were required to celebrate Tabernacles prior to Messiah coming, Messiah Himself celebrated Tabernacles every year of His life, the triumphal entry was the culmination of Tabernacles, Zechariah's prophecy of God's fulfilled Kingdom has every human on earth being required to celebrate Tabernacles of suffer a yearlong drought, and the saints in Revelation are celebrating Tabernacles before the Throne of God....

But keeping the feast right now is somehow evil or wrong??

Somehow that just doesn't add up. :)


The Hebrew Law is not a discription of the nature of God, it reveals one portion of his nature. A portion which was fulfilled by Jesus Christ when he came and died on the cross. God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change. No 'portion' of God gets fulfilled, God is unchanging and changeless from Genesis to Revelation.


Of course this is a repetition of the Mosaic Law. Much of what is in the Mosaic Law is excellent, and should be applied in our lives today. HOWEVER: Paul was not refering to the Hebrew Law guiding our actions, he was talking about the principle of rewarding those who do the work.So who gets to pick and choose which parts are still good and which parts have become evil? You? I should bow at the feet of john Taylor as the source of all truth knowledge and inspiration? No thanks. I'll stick with God and Messiah, and the Holy Scriptures. :)


Sure it does, Scripture states that Christ fulfilled the law. No, it does not. Scripture says that the Law points to Messiah, which only makes sense given that the Law is a description of the nature of God, and Messiah is the very expression of God.


Only God can judge the heart, so again I reproach you in Christian love.Only God can judge a heart, is that why you indicated that God was not in my heart? Are you proclaiming yourself to be God now? or does the prohibition against judgment not apply to John Taylor?


I had no idea you could string together such a torrent of blabber. Bravo. I pray for God to give me clarity, and to reveal to me the meaning of His inspired Holy Word.I do hope that you will do just that, because the fact is that the modern church has completely lost the bubble and fallen away from the truth. There remains a remnant as there has always been a remnant, but until you are willing to let go of the hedges that have been created by man, you will not be able to perceive the truth as revealed by God.

You have added assumption to insult by assuming a legalistic nature in my theology that simply does not exist. You spoke in an earlier post about my being hateful, but I have never characterized your offerings as "blabber."

I say again, when you speak of hatefulness, perhaps you should remove the telephone pole from your own eye before you worry about the splinter in mine.


I have NEVER passed judgment on the eternal home of your soul. As for the nature. I don't need to, it is like mine, a sin nature which needs to accept Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. If the love of God is not in my heart, as you passed such judgment only a few days ago, then you have made the judgment that God is not in me, and I am not his. that is not your judgment to make, and however you choose to spin it, that is indeed the judgment you have made.


They are not, which is why we are commanded to speak to one another in Christian humility, kindliness, and compassion. Then perhaps you should reevaluate your approach and begin doing so. :)


What a coincidence, I do!!! Having gone to an Independent Baptist Seminary myself for some time, I have studied both Greek and Hebrew. Your position is entirely untenable Scripturally. I am seeking to correct you in a spirit of Christian love.Either you are making that up or lying outright. I read Hebrew and Greek, and while much of the English is supported by the originals, several of the meanings have been shaded contrary to the context or the primary connotation of the original languages.


Of course, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.



EXACTLY! "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Until all the law was fulfilled by the death and resurection of Jesus Christ it was in effect 100%.Looks to me like heaven and earth are still intact, or does that part not really mean what it actually says? I stamp my feet, the planet feels pretty solid. I gaze up into the heavens and see the clouds, sky, moon, stars, nebulae and galaxies and perceive that they are real. I feel the Spirit moving in me and perceive the effects of the Spirit in the universe around me and I understand that the Third Heaven, the realm of eternity, has not passed away.

Until heaven and earth shall pass. Heaven and earth have not passed.


False interpretation and misconstruction of the passage. LOL, all I did was to restate the exact same verbiage from the passage itself, but in plain language. How is a direct restatement of scripture a "False interpretation and misconstruction of the passage" ?

I can only imagine you are rejecting it because it conflicts with your own misconstruction, quite aside from the fact that it is nothing more than the direct verbiage repeated from the scripture.


I have read the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek as well, and while I have not read it as often as I wish, I can also say that, as someone who went to an Independent Baptist Theological Seminary, I too did not find a solitary professor who disagreed with my understanding of practice. Perhaps then it is time to reevaluate your lessons.


The Southern Baptist Convention went liberal decades ago. I stand with the Word of God, regardless of what a convention decides.Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, while affiliated with the SBC, has for decades been recognized as one of the most scripturally conservative and literalistic seminaries in the United States, and perhaps on the planet, second only to Bob Jones University, and for my money superior to Bob Jones, as they tend to go beyond the scripture, which was one of the chief complaints Messiah had against the Pharisees.


After you open a conversation with an insult, you have a lot of gall to assert that I have been anything other than respectful in my interactions with you here.If you think I am the one being insulting here, then you need your head examined. You are one of the most offensive posters on Ron Paul Forums. I cannot imagine how or why you are blinded to that, but it is a cold, hard fact.

You also know that I am not the only person who has ever told you that. Indeed, you have been told time and time again that your are very insulting and offensive by scores of people and you just ignore that, only to accuse me of being offensive when I disagree with you.

Somehow hardening your heart against the revelation of your own hypocrisy is unbecoming.

If you honestly and genuinely believe that you have been respectful, then honestly I have no idea what else to tell you. There is no question but that you are one of the most disrespectful posters on Ron Paul Forums. You can ask almost anybody here and they will tell you the same. I am not making this stuff up.

If you honestly think that you have been and are being respectful, then I would be worried about the potential for clinical schizophrenia, which can make your own actions dramatically different from your perception of your actions. I have no other explanation for how you can imagine that you are a respectful person when it's more than apparent that you are not.


Oh the martyr! I feel the same way. I wasn't saying I disagree with any of the political stances you have taken. When I labored for Ron in NC in 2007, I did not notice anything which would have indicated you were anything other than a fine individual. I was briefly upset because you took it upon yourself to personally insult me, on this, a matter unconnected to the purposes of this forum.Wasn't it you who accused me of adding to scripture? A curse, by the way. Wasn't it you who passed the judgment that I did not have the love of God in my heart? A condemnation, by the way.

You revel and glory in insulting people and lording over them in your alleged superiority, and then when someone steps up and pulls the brakes, you accuse them of everything that you, yourself have been doing.

This is a pretty common occurrence in religious debates, actually. I call it "the mirror of truth" effect. People become blinded to their own faults and project them upon their opponents.

Again, this is the second time you have tried to guilt me with a donation based on some random and irrelevant disagreement. I simply will not stand for it.

Do you think trying to guilt people into abandoning their principles and slavishly consider you to be their superior is an example of "being respectful"? really? really?


I have never asked a single person on this earth to abandon truth and true principles. I will use Scripture to correct an errant brother if and when God gives me the ability.And when that scripture supports the other position you condemn them as being outside of God, as if that answers the debate and you don't have to deal with it anymore.


God alone knows the true and entire meaning of His revealed Word, so for you or any other person to claim a monopoly on Biblical interpretation is a heinous sin. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to force generations of gentiles to live beneath it. Again, this is the mirror of truth effect, as I mentioned above. I am not the one claiming a monopoly on biblical interpretation, you are. You are the one insinuating that I am not a Christian because you disagree with my understanding and claiming yourself to be superior. You are the one judging the condition of my heart because i prefer to keep the WHOLE of scripture instead of little chosen bits and pieces.

You are the one...STILL...lying about my position in order to strike down your legalistic strawman as though I am claiming that anybody should be legalistically bound to the letter of the Law.

If you were actually being respectful of me, wouldn't that involve actually being truthful about my position?

Or in your world, is lying about what somebody believes in order to claim victory in an argument somehow an expression of "respect?"


The Pharisees kept the law, but their hearts were not turned towards God. Instead of rejoicing over the raising of Lazarus, they attempted to kill the Son of God.Because they were upholding the letter while ignoring the Spirit. Even worse, upholding the letter against everybody else while claiming that the Spirit was able to overlook their own shortcomings.

The Pharisees were reacting in outrage because they could not handle it being demonstrated that they were wrong....

Sounds familiar somehow...


You are speaking nonsense.Nobody likes being told that they are wrong, especially when the evidence supports that.


Precisely.



Sure, that is my conclusion as well, but that does not alter te Biblical fact that Christ's death and resurection fulfilled the old law. As James 2:10 states: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."English has two completely disparate meanings for the world "fulfilled." One is the sense you are using as in "made an end to it" and the other is the correct sense as in "making it full."

You will note that the Greek as well as the context support the law having been "made full" rather than "made an end to."

You say that circumcision is not only not required but that it has become sinful. Not true, circumcision is now as required as it ever has been, it has been internalized to apply to the heart rather than the flesh.

You likely assume that it is no longer required to refrain from harvesting the corners of your field in order to help feed the poor, but I tell you that having compassion on the poor is no less important today than it ever was, and leaving the corners unharvested depicts a model which I follow by dumping all of my unspent pocket change into a jar and twice a year paying out that change to charity.

What Messiah actually did was to demonstrate the PROPER Spiritual interpretation of the Law (ie, "making it full" or demonstrating the full interpretation of the Law) which prior to His coming had been sorely lacking.


Nonsense.Well, there you go again.


Sure, Paul recognized his sin through the law!!! That is how people came to salvation, through faith, prior to the coming of Christ. Salvation is, was, and always will be through the same mechanism. God does not change, only our relationship to God through time and eternity changes. What was once physically represented is now spiritually represented.

The temple 4000 years ago is the same as the temple today, only the physical model from 4000 years ago is the spiritual reality in the realm of eternity today.

There is still an outer courtyard. There is still a sanctuary. There is still the Holy of Holies. The only difference is that it is no longer temporal but eternal.

The Law has not changed. Each and every aspect of the Law is still intact, as Messiah said it would be "until heaven and earth pass away." The difference which messiah brought to us is that our perception of the Law is no longer temporal but eternal.


Obviously not. I dare say that God did not lower the bar when Messiah came, died, and rose again, but He raised it, and set it even higher than it had been before Messiah came.

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Law was never about paper and ink, the Law was never about imposing torts and penalties, but about describing righteousness, and after that Messiah had come, the bar of righteousness was not lowered, but set even HIGHER:

Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Messiah took and demonstrated that the Law was still intact, "you shall do no murder" but that it was not meant physically as much as spiritually, and that it should apply more to the heart than the hands. He therefore made the interpretation FULL (ie, fulfilled)

Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Messiah took and demonstrated that the Law was still intact, "you shall not commit adultery" but that it was not meant physically as much as spiritually, and that it should apply more to the heart than the hands. He therefore made the interpretation FULL (ie, fulfilled)

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The law is a revelation of the nature of God, and we are commanded by Messiah to be perfect, even as God is perfect. Thus, the bar was not lowered from the Mosaic era, but raised. Messiah also goes on to demonstrate further that the spiritual is higher than the physical:

Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.


The law is fulfilled. Surely covetousness remains a sin, but that does not mean we live under the Hebrew law.The law is made full. Not changed, not abolished, made FULL. plerow, πληροω- "to make full, to fill up, to fill. Mat 13:48 to fill up to the top. Phil 4:19 to cause to abound. Justin histories 11,7 to fillup and diffuse throughout one's soul. Colossiand 4:12 tp pervade, to take posession of one's heart.

Nowhere in all of scripture or in the historical usage of Koine Greek, NOWHERE is πληροω- used in the sense of "fulfilled=makes it go away" but everywhere in scripture and in the history of Koine Greek πληροω- is used to denote something being made MORE FULL, bearing fruit, coming into it's own, finally understood correctly, pervading the soul, pervading the world.

πληροω- means to MAGNIFY. the law is πληροω-, or MAGNIFIED in Messiah through the deeper, spiritual, eternal understanding of the Spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.


CHRIST ALONE FULFILLED THE LAW. ONCE. We can do nothing to fulfill the law ourselves. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." And though you give to charity, attend worship, support your church, and do all of these things, one lusty look at a married woman and your soul is in danger of damnation.

This should all be all the more obvious by the use of two completely different Greek words for "fulfill" in Matthew 5.

Matthew 5:17 ...I did not come to annul, but to fulfill πληρωσαι /plerosai/ "make full, make pervasive, to magnify"

Matthew 5:18 ...shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. γενται /gentai/ "to be made, finished, completed."

If you really do read Greek as you claimed, then this should be quire apparent.


I agree with your analysis of legalism.Good. So stop accusing me of it.


So, the law was fulfilled.The law was made full. It was brought to fruition. What was once just a bud has now become a full flower. /pleroo/ NOT /gentai/

The advent of Messiah has taken the immature physical letter of the Law, and transfigured it into the mature eternal spirit of the Law.


Of course, this is my entire point. It is the internal obedience to Christ, not an act of obeying the old, long fulfilled law, which is required.Messiah is the embodiment of the WORD of God. The Law is an aspect of the WORD of God. Obeying Messiah means obeying the WORD of God, which includes the Law.

Heaven and earth are still in existence, they have not passed away. That means not one iota has passed from the Law. The Law was not ended in Messiah, it was brought to fruition.

Since you WANT the law to have gone away, (this is a desire contained in your physical nature, being afraid of death) you have to invent the fairy tale that heaven and earth passed away and were recreated during the death and resurrection of the Messiah.

Clearly that is nonsense.

Instead, you should EMBRACE the death that is contained in the letter of the law and thus die to the world and find the renewed life that is in the Spirit of the Law as embodied by Messiah.

Matthew chapters 5-7 are often called "Kingdom Law" as this is where Messiah teaches us how to apply the Law following his first coming. He did not negate even one aspect of the Law, He actually expanded it. Do not murder (physical) now means Do not hate (spiritual). Do not commit adultery (physical) now means do not lust (spiritual).

Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter in to the Kingdom, but those who do the will of the Father. That will is revealed in the Law.

If you are cast away on a desert island and can only take one small section of scripture with you, let it be Matthew chapters 5-7. This is the section that the modern church is most aggregiously in contradiction to, and this is the section that most desperately needs to be burned into the minds and the hearts of the modern church.


I have never claimed to be without my faults. I have many, and am a most imperfect vessel. I recognize this, and pray daily for God to work great things in my heart. You insult me for opposing an unscriptural heretical teaching. Well, God will be the judge.LOL now I am a heretic too. :rolleyes:

Somehow I bet you consider that calling me a heretic is "respectful" don't you? :)

I think I am starting to understand you, if i called you a heretic, it would be an insult, but when you call me a heretic it's just an observation, right? Isn't that how you think?

Again, from Matthew 7:3-5 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Praying for insight and understanding is useless if you harden your heart against the answer. I dare say that you do more harm than good to pray for understanding and then hardening your heart, that so long as you are going to harden your heart and shut your eyes and ears against the answer you would do well to refrain from praying for understanding until you can control that impulse to harden your heart.

You say that I am a heretic because I observe the whole of scripture from cover to cover rather than just selecting out the bits and pieces I like and tossing away the parts I don't like.

God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change. The law which revealed His nature 4000 years ago, will continue to reveal His nature 4000 years from now.

If you really do read Greek, and you are honest with yourself, then you will come to the conclusion that /pleroo/ (fulfill) in Matthew 5:17 does not mean what you think it does. Yes, it's scary, but it's not as bad as you think.

You don't see me running around with a yarmulka or tzit-tzit. I don't have curly locks flowing below a skullcap and I am not growing a grizzly adams beard.

I do not say that violating the letter of the law means instant and eternal condemnation (as you seem to claim that I do), nor have I accused you of being hellbound for observing the Roman holiday of Christmas.

And yet, these are the things you accuse me of whether directly or indirectly. You try and lay on me a curse of adding to the scripture when I do no such thing.

Inasmuch as I am an originalist when it comes to understanding the Constitution, I am likewise an originalist when it comes to understanding the scripture. That's called "consistency."

If you are feeling the pangs of conviction, then it is best not to reject them, but to embrace them.

Kludge
03-31-2011, 06:09 AM
Bump. I've had a lot of trouble figuring out how to enter in the data I have on this because I've changed the wording and options every year. I've even considered discontinuing this particular question -- every year, there's a shitstorm of off-topic discussion and smartasses (not that I consider it a flaw) -but it does provide potentially useful information on the makeup of RPFs, so I think I'll be keeping the question, but changing the question wording and options (... again).

I've decided the 2011-12 poll will read as follows: "Do you adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs? If so, which?"

The options will be as follows:
"Christianity (Catholic)"
"Christianity (Protestant/Other)"
"Muslim"
"Eastern (Buddhist/Hindu/etc)"
"Jewish"
"I do not adhere to any religion. (Atheists/Agnostics/"non-religious")"
"Other"

I justify shortening the list and wording it as is to reduce ambiguity in what I'm asking and eliminate options for religions which have statistically insignificant representation. Removing "Protestant" had nothing to do with favoring Catholics and was only done because Catholics have a particularly high # of similarities among themselves AND a high # of followers while "Protestants" are represented by many different beliefs and ideologies. Removing Quakers, Mormons, Buddhists, etc. was done solely because their representative numbers have been statistically insignificant. I will be merging all the data in older (and current) polls to fit in with the seven options I presented above when entering the data into a spreadsheet to make a graph.

Open to suggestions/criticisms.

goldencane
03-31-2011, 06:37 AM
Agnostic Theist here.

eduardo89
03-31-2011, 07:15 AM
Traditionalist Catholic.

teacherone
03-31-2011, 07:22 AM
this may be the longest post in rpf history.

props to gunny!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?254078-Demographics-Religion-(2010-2011)&p=2815850&viewfull=1#post2815850

muzzled dogg
03-31-2011, 07:38 AM
Pro-spirituality / anti-religious

Jeremy
03-31-2011, 07:40 AM
Is it a new trend that there are more agnostics than athiests?

Kludge
04-02-2011, 02:53 PM
bump

JCLibertarian
04-02-2011, 03:07 PM
Agnostic. Definitely not a polytheist or Abrahamic Monotheist. I also disagree with Deists on God setting the "clock" so to speak in motion. I think if their is a spiritual life force, it is in ever existing time and matter, as matter cannot be created or destroyed. Though I can't prove it and don't necessarily believe it, that is why I am an agnostic. I do not believe in a god/spirit, but I do not believe their is no god or spirit.

goldencane
04-02-2011, 03:13 PM
Is it a new trend that there are more agnostics than athiests?

I think more people who claimed to be atheist are now realizing they are actually agnostic. Atheism is just as valid as any religion that believes in a god, as both are equally difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Kludge
04-02-2011, 03:14 PM
I think more people who claimed to be atheist are now realizing they are actually agnostic. Atheism is just as valid as any religion that believes in a god, as both are equally difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
That describes what happened to me, fwiw.

MelissaWV
04-02-2011, 03:31 PM
Agnostic. Definitely not a polytheist or Abrahamic Monotheist. I also disagree with Deists on God setting the "clock" so to speak in motion. I think if their is a spiritual life force, it is in ever existing time and matter, as matter cannot be created or destroyed. Though I can't prove it and don't necessarily believe it, that is why I am an agnostic. I do not believe in a god/spirit, but I do not believe their is no god or spirit.

So you don't believe in the Big Bang? :)

JCLibertarian
04-02-2011, 04:59 PM
So you don't believe in the Big Bang? :)

Of course I believe the universe is expanding, if that is what you mean.

MelissaWV
04-02-2011, 05:06 PM
Of course I believe the universe is expanding, if that is what you mean.

Right, but at its beginning, the universe was a big dense ball of matter? I mean, where did THAT come from? And the force to scatter it so intensely that it's still expanding? :confused: (in re: matter can neither be created nor destroyed)

JCLibertarian
04-02-2011, 05:16 PM
Right, but at its beginning, the universe was a big dense ball of matter? I mean, where did THAT come from? And the force to scatter it so intensely that it's still expanding? :confused: (in re: matter can neither be created nor destroyed)

All matter condensed at the point of singularity. No one knows at this point for sure how it expanded. And honestly, I know very little about theoretical physics, so I can't give an educated answer on theories about universal expansion. All I know is that many scientists at this point propose the M-theory explains the rapid and continued expansion of matter. There are essentially 11 dimensions, and the 11th dimension string can acquire enough energy to expand infinitely as a result of two membranes colliding.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-m-theory.htm

EndDaFed
04-02-2011, 05:33 PM
Something unexplained happened; therefor, the lizard king created us!

One Last Battle!
04-02-2011, 09:12 PM
Atheist. You live for a while, apply your own meaning to live, try to enjoy it best you can, and then die, whereupon you cease to exist.

A bit grim I suppose, but I don't see any other way to describe being dead that doesn't verge on huge suppositions. I sure would like to be wrong, though. Also, I am not ENTIRELY certain there is no God, but I am pretty sure that there isn't one (and if there is, he certainly doesn't seem morally righteous) and won't be swayed by anything short of very strong evidence or outright proof. I know that is kind of agnosticish, but I am more along atheistic lines then that.

The Dark Knight
04-02-2011, 09:36 PM
The name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As A Mormon I accept Jesus Christ as my savior and the son of God. I consider myself a christian. We believe in Jesus Christ.

emazur
04-02-2011, 10:05 PM
Is it a new trend that there are more agnostics than athiests?

Maybe, I've noticed a similar trend with people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious. Anyway, Colbert hit the nail on the head with agnostics vs. atheists (don't get bent out of shape - just a little humor!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h63HhdR2KM

Fox McCloud
04-02-2011, 11:52 PM
Typically, a Protestant is just the offspring of the Roman Church, claiming to protest some of what the Roman Church does but not all of their practices. The distinction is that those claiming to be non-denominational are separating themselves completely from ever having had anything to do with the "Catholic Church".

To have circumvented the Roman Church is to disavow it ever had any legitimate existence and thus those who claim to be non-denominational have continued the practices of the original Church of God as it was before the third century.

And this pretty much sums up why the "reformation" was a "non-event"...

libertarian4321
04-03-2011, 01:23 AM
I agree, Mormonism denies the basic tenet of Christianity. That Jesus Christ is the one and only son of God, who came to earth, who died for our sins, offers free and unconditional salvation to all those who place their trust in him, and who is the sole way to commune with God.

You should probably read what the Church of JESUS CHRIST (emphasis is theirs, not mine) of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) say about it. What you wrote about Mormons doesn't agree with what they believe:

http://mormon.org/jesus-christ?gclid=CPXe6vjm_6cCFUNl7Aod6R0srw

All the Mormons I know consider themselves to be Christians.

Not that it really matters to me.

I consider myself a freethinker and choose reason over faith.

iGGz
05-15-2011, 11:38 PM
Nothing like a little religion to bring out the worst in people

White Bear Lake
05-16-2011, 12:07 AM
Roman Catholic. After 13 years of Catholic schooling, I think I got Catholicism and Irish-American history pretty well pounded into me.

Though I'm not a huge fan of Vatican II.

Yieu
05-16-2011, 12:11 AM
I've decided the 2011-12 poll will read as follows: "Do you adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs? If so, which?"

The options will be as follows:
"Christianity (Catholic)"
"Christianity (Protestant/Other)"
"Muslim"
"Eastern (Buddhist/Hindu/etc)"
"Jewish"
"I do not adhere to any religion. (Atheists/Agnostics/"non-religious")"
"Other"

It makes sense to reduce the Christian options to Catholic and Protestant, but Buddhism is very different from Hinduism. Hinduism is monotheistic and believes in One God, the same God as Christianity and Islam, but Buddhism leaves open whether there is a God or not. Ah well, never mind, it is statistically insignificant as there are so few who follow these religions here.

Also Atheism should be separate from "agnostic/non-religious" because Atheism is a firm belief that there is no God where as agnostic/non-religious do not claim to know for a fact one way or the other, which is a significant difference.

As for my religion; Hindu, by choice and not birth. I believe that all religions are just various methods to go back to God and to learn to serve and love Him, and we chose which method we prefer the most. But the essence of religion is in my sig:


"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- Krishna/God (http://asitis.com/18/66.html)

But discussing religion seems to bother some, though it is my favorite topic, so I'll leave it at that.

jewelryab
05-16-2011, 03:10 AM
I guess I was just a little stunned to see a confessional lutheran deny being a protestant! To me that's like a LCMS pastor getting up and saying that A Mighty Fortress Is Our God is a papist anthem!!!

I agree with you about the utility of polls like this though...


Rift Gold (http://www.zyy.com/gold/Rift-Planes-of-Telara-US-Platinum.html) Buy Runescape Gold (http://www.wly.com/gold/Runescape/)

Tinnuhana
05-16-2011, 04:02 AM
haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this is redundant: Baptists are not technically Protestants. That may be why so many "christian (other)" votes.

Austrian Econ Disciple
05-16-2011, 04:11 AM
Science can never answer the where or why, only what is. Which is why the atheist position is untenable. I'm a Deist. I find it difficult to believe that the Universe has always been and always will be. The question begs where did the first something come from? I think this question is beyond human comprehension, so while I am a Deist (abstract God based on human reason and logic), I am mostly irreligious.