What is the Point of Believing in God Without Religion?

[ApeNotKillApe]

All decided by a committee of men; the canon, the creed, the deification of Christ, all determined by political convenience and popular vote amidst plenty of infighting and deception among those men. Whatever factions arose in the centuries that followed are mutations on the belief systems that proliferated themselves and eliminated the competition. Consequently why you don't hear much from, say, the Lucifereans these days.

So we now go back to the word I asked you to look up.

Schism

What does that mean?

I think I just summed up the general idea pretty well, sport.

[Drich]

Are you fucking kidding me? The Westboro Baptists are absolutely justified in doing what they do if the only criteria is the bible.

Like what???

Their stance on homosexuality might actually be one of the few things in the bible that doesn't get contradicted anywhere else in it.

Such as?

The problem is not their interpretation of the bible,

Then have one of the provide book Chapter and verse. If they can not find a Christian command that coinsides with one from their religion or it has to be filtered down over several different books or verses then it is indeed a problem of interpretation.

the problem is the fucking bible itself. That's why it's incapable of being reformed, there's nothing to reform. You can't make a spiked suppository not cause damage just by numbing up the hole you shove it into.

But again, without B,V,C they do not have supository nor the right to spike it.

So instead of making a complete jackass of yourself and using a No True Scotsmen fallacy,

Please explain. As I see no true scotsman does not apply when there are rules defining what Christianity is and is not.

get with reality and understand that your bah-ble is incapable of being 'truth' and can't, by its very nature, lead you anywhere good.

why not? because you say so? or is that just a empty statment of blind faith on your part?

I mean, really, explain how something written explicitly in that book is wrong if it's infallible

where in the bible has it ever said it is infallible?

, or if something later came along and reversed it, how god is supposed to be utterly perfect and never make mistakes and therefore never have to change his opinion. Go on, I dare you. Otherwise don't waste my fucking time.

1)The bible said God is perfect... Meaning with out sin.

2) what does a perceived error in scripture have to do with God? Do you believe the bible to be God? Then why would you assume the bible need be held to the same standard?

[Astonished]

No. As Humans always have a variable or unknown element which is what we are weighing out.

wrong and bad are simple matters of perspective. If I am a jew and God told us to invade a town killing everything and take everything of value, then to me that would be a good decision. however if I am among those whom God told to invade... I would say that was a wrong or bad decision.

No being perfect simply mean God does not sin. Meaning it would not be wrong for God to order a destruction of a given people or town.

The decisions God makes are not on a best or possible scale. God know what to do and when to do it so what we would identify as 'variables' would all fall like dominoes so as to come to what God wanted the outcome to be.

Yes that is how God lines up what we would see as an unknown like a domino to be fell.

no. What I see is spelled out by me above.

Being created in the image of God does not make one God. A hot wheels can be created in the image of a 1967 mustang but no matter how much gas you put in one it will never be a 1967 mustang. To be made in the image of simple means you share some attributes. How much or little depends on God.

No, as again our thoughts are not His thoughts. Our ways are not His ways. or so says Isaiah


what would you like to know of God's plan?

Thank you. I was just curious about your perspective on that (and developing my own) but not referring it to any particular decision... just interested in the process, as I always am. That's kind of how I would envisage it as well... as like dominoes.

But in regards to God's being perfect only in that he does not sin, I'm not sure what you mean. I take God to be the creator of the notion of sin, in the sense that without the humans he creates (or other beings... if he created angels as well), there can be no sin. In other words he sets the rules his creations have to abide by... and those rules are whatever offends him. So are you saying that he is perfect because he abides by his own rules or are you saying that sin is somehow an objective concept, separate from both God and man, that both have to abide by?

It's a lose-lose situation. I keep saying, there's nothing to reform in that book, it's talked its way into a corner it can't get out of. Either god is a hypocrite and not a role model to emulate nor worthy of worship or adoration, or he negates the entire idea that there is any such thing as objective morality which is probably the most irritating misconception the religious hold.

[Drich]

So we now go back to the word I asked you to look up.

Schism

What does that mean?

I think I just summed up the general idea pretty well, sport.

So.. in your monkey logic. Men in a consul can devise a creed, that people of a later generation do not agree with or will not pledge themselves to are still subject to the 'religion' those men help create?

Do you not understand the topic being discussed?

It is about this very thing. it is about casting off religion casting off creeds and other religious boundries and following God old sport.

[Astonished]

Are you fucking kidding me? The Westboro Baptists are absolutely justified in doing what they do if the only criteria is the bible.

Like what???

Their stance on homosexuality might actually be one of the few things in the bible that doesn't get contradicted anywhere else in it.

Such as?

The problem is not their interpretation of the bible,

Then have one of the provide book Chapter and verse. If they can not find a Christian command that coinsides with one from their religion or it has to be filtered down over several different books or verses then it is indeed a problem of interpretation.

the problem is the fucking bible itself. That's why it's incapable of being reformed, there's nothing to reform. You can't make a spiked suppository not cause damage just by numbing up the hole you shove it into.

But again, without B,V,C they do not have supository nor the right to spike it.

So instead of making a complete jackass of yourself and using a No True Scotsmen fallacy,

Please explain. As I see no true scotsman does not apply when there are rules defining what Christianity is and is not.  

get with reality and understand that your bah-ble is incapable of being 'truth' and can't, by its very nature, lead you anywhere good.

why not? because you say so? or is that just a empty statment of blind faith on your part?

I mean, really, explain how something written explicitly in that book is wrong if it's infallible

where in the bible has it ever said it is infallible?

, or if something later came along and reversed it, how god is supposed to be utterly perfect and never make mistakes and therefore never have to change his opinion. Go on, I dare you. Otherwise don't waste my fucking time.

1)The bible said God is perfect... Meaning with out sin.

2) what does a perceived error in scripture have to do with God? Do you believe the bible to be God? Then why would you assume the bible need be held to the same standard?

Ugh. You have removed all doubt that you are a troll. Get lost.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I think I just summed up the general idea pretty well, sport.

So.. in your monkey logic.

Ape logic.

Men in a consul can devise a creed, that people of a later generation do not agree with or will not pledge themselves to are still subject to the 'religion' those men help create?

People operate by their frame of reference, whatever that may be. Martin Luther had unconventional ideas for his time, but his frame of reference was that of the established ideologues, the Fall of Man, the Trinity, the Atonement, etc. Things Christians accept as a divinely authored or at least inspired, ideas that trace their memetic lineage to a roomful of men who long ago decided the canon, creed and concept of Christ as the carnal conception of the creator which contemporary Christians commonly cling to as a credible cosmic corroboration. 'Christianity' was not delivered fully formed by revelation, but cobbled together out of the wildly differing sects and mutually exclusive principles that lay scattered about the known world as the result of the schisms that warranted Constantine to organize the sodding council talks in the first place. Yes, people are subject to history.

Do you not understand the topic being discussed?

It is about this very thing. it is about casting off religion casting off creeds and other religious boundries and following God old sport.

You remove the stability of institution, rapid division follows, sects once whole fracture into new denominations, over time they drift apart both geographically and ideologically until eventually they become sufficiently distinct from each other that once they come into contact, they will be incompatible, perhaps unrecognizable as being related in the first place. Conflict follows. Whatever survives continues to fracture and spread. As it does now. As it always has.

[Astonished]

So.. in your monkey logic.

Ape logic.

Men in a consul can devise a creed, that people of a later generation do not agree with or will not pledge themselves to are still subject to the 'religion' those men help create?

People operate by their frame of reference, whatever that may be. Martin Luther had unconventional ideas for his time, but his frame of reference was that of the established ideologues, the Fall of Man, the Trinity, the Atonement, etc. Things Christians accept as a divinely authored or at least inspired, ideas that trace their memetic lineage to a roomful of men who long ago decided the canon, creed and concept of Christ as the carnal conception of the creator which contemporary Christians commonly cling to as a credible cosmic corroboration. 'Christianity' was not delivered fully formed by revelation, but cobbled together out of the wildly differing sects and mutually exclusive principles that lay scattered about the known world as the result of the schisms that warranted Constantine to organize the sodding council talks in the first place. Yes, people are subject to history.

Do you not understand the topic being discussed?

It is about this very thing. it is about casting off religion casting off creeds and other religious boundries and following God old sport.

So am I allowed to simultaneously beat AND rape my slaves or do I have to just do one things at a time? 'Cause god wants us to have fun, but not too much fun, and I want to make sure I fully understand his will. Praise him for giving me a penis so I don't have to deal with all the crap of not having one, as is his will.

[vorlon13]

as long as it is circumcised

[vorlon13]

[Godscreated]

Could it be you do not understand what religion is when it comes to the God of the Bible. John the Baptist never attended organized religious services, he preached what the Holy Spirit showed him. He had no building nor plates to take a collection, he wasn't paid, he did tithe with what he had and that was time and loyalty. He worked in the community as hard as anyone ever has and Jesus commended him on his service. In the end he gave his life for what he knew to be true.

GC

No, he gave his life for a belief that had no basis in reality. That happens. 

You know this how, from studying the Bible and history or from your like minded friends who know as little about Christ as you do.

GC