The Bible and it's religion.

[Southtown]

Google online bible: 10,700,000 hits.

 

The most obvious one is http://www.bible.com

I prefer http://www.biblegateway.com because it is searchable and has dozens of versions for effortlessly comparing individual verses.

[C1ay]

I prefer http://www.biblegateway.com because it is searchable and has dozens of versions for effortlessly comparing individual verses.

So does http://bible.crosswalk.com/

[IrishEyes]

While I say that, I also believe that the Bible was inspired by a divine all-powerful being - but I know that none of the Bible-based religions (including Christianity) has got the interpretation correct.

Really???

Well, can you share your knowledge with the rest of us? How do you know that none of the Bible based religions have the interpretation correct?

I'm very interested in your response.

[eMTee]

:) The fact that there are so many different interpretations for 'one' book is evidence that something is seriously 'wrong' - something which Christians refuse to acknowlege.

 

While I say that, I also believe that the Bible was inspired by a divine all-powerful being - but I know that none of the Bible-based religions (including Christianity) has got the interpretation correct.

 

As it stands, science is proving Christianity wrong all the time. There is Biblical evidence for the big bang even though Christian's fought science on that one for ages. Christian's also initially refused to acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs because it didn't fit in with their belief system.

 

Religion owes science a great big apology!!!

 

I cannot see how a person can misinterpret the Bible in it's religion, it is so plain and clear, that one would have to be willingly misled by their unknowledgeable view of it's teaching.. now in OTHER topics and portions of scripture, it would have to be studies in depth, because I can see how one could misinterpret it, but at the same time (apart from it's gospel) if you study it, one can come to an understanding.. the Gospel SHOULD be easy to understand without any in depth study.

[Boerseun]

I cannot see how a person can misinterpret the Bible in it's religion, it is so plain and clear, that one would have to be willingly misled by their unknowledgeable view of it's teaching.. now in OTHER topics and portions of scripture, it would have to be studies in depth, because I can see how one could misinterpret it, but at the same time (apart from it's gospel) if you study it, one can come to an understanding.. the Gospel SHOULD be easy to understand without any in depth study.

The Bible and any interpretation of it, is at best subjective. Suicide bombers is illustrative of a subjective view of the Q'uran.

The same can be said of Roman Catholics, Reformists, Methodists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, Re-reformists, Anglicans, Coptics, etc. The list goes on. These versions of Christianity differ from each other in different interpretations of Scripture, but differences fundemental enough to justify complete different infrastructures. They will rarely break bread together. Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations of the same Book have blown Northern Ireland to bits over the years.

Now - statistically speaking, to keep it simple, lets say there's fifty different flavours of Christianity out there (There's actually a heck of a lot more, and let's discount for a second Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc). The ONE SINGLE CHURCH to get it right, could be any one of these. Is it your church? You've got a 2% chance, at best. Statistically, your Church is on the wrong path, with the wrong interpretation of the Bible. Chances are 98% that you're wasting your time, and should look to join a different church.

 

Matters of the soul like religion, are subjective in its very nature, and governments shouldn't meddle with it or even give recognition to its existence. A government should look down on its subjects and smile at its petty foolishness like belief in supernatural beings, but not interfere. And for a government to give recognition to ONE religion, to have ONE STATE CHURCH (like the Anglicans in the UK) with a 98% failure rate is a bit risque as far as application of public funds are concerned.

[eMTee]

The Bible and any interpretation of it, is at best subjective. Suicide bombers is illustrative of a subjective view of the Q'uran.

The same can be said of Roman Catholics, Reformists, Methodists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, Re-reformists, Anglicans, Coptics, etc. The list goes on. These versions of Christianity differ from each other in different interpretations of Scripture, but differences fundemental enough to justify complete different infrastructures. They will rarely break bread together. Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations of the same Book have blown Northern Ireland to bits over the years.

Now - statistically speaking, to keep it simple, lets say there's fifty different flavours of Christianity out there (There's actually a heck of a lot more, and let's discount for a second Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc). The ONE SINGLE CHURCH to get it right, could be any one of these. Is it your church? You've got a 2% chance, at best. Statistically, your Church is on the wrong path, with the wrong interpretation of the Bible. Chances are 98% that you're wasting your time, and should look to join a different church.

 

Matters of the soul like religion, are subjective in its very nature, and governments shouldn't meddle with it or even give recognition to its existence. A government should look down on its subjects and smile at its petty foolishness like belief in supernatural beings, but not interfere. And for a government to give recognition to ONE religion, to have ONE STATE CHURCH (like the Anglicans in the UK) with a 98% failure rate is a bit risque as far as application of public funds are concerned.

 

This is the Bible's Gospel. the only way to be saved is threw Jesus Christ, not good works. Salvation is by faith and not threw works, "there is no other way to the Father (God) but threw me (Jesus)". There is no other name under Heaven given among men by which you must be saved.

 

You can live all your life being as good a person as you can. But without Jesus, it is all but a waste of time..all mans rightousness is as filthy rags to God. God is a perfect God and only expects perfection, Jesus was that perfection, and only him, and the only way to Heaven is threw believing on his name. Salvation is free, and everyone, bad or good is equaly capible of recieving it, no matter if you are a murderer or a hero, as long as you are still alive, you can be saved, but after that, it's done and you made your decision.

 

The Catholics believe in purgatory, and that people can pray for the dead to get into Heaven, No where in the Bible does it suport that. I do believe that there are Christian Catholics, but at the same time, I believe many Catholics dont realy know the Gospel, but they are more so taught good works and rituals Such as Mass.

 

Jahovah Witness I think believe in reincarnation, and dont teach the Gospel, they also have a fabricated Bible. I do not believe that all of the denominations out there are the Church. and many are false churches with no teaching of the Gospel. and without the Gospel, their religion is quite worthless.

[Skippy]

The Bible and any interpretation of it, is at best subjective. Suicide bombers is illustrative of a subjective view of the Q'uran.

The same can be said of Roman Catholics, Reformists, Methodists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, Re-reformists, Anglicans, Coptics, etc. The list goes on. These versions of Christianity differ from each other in different interpretations of Scripture, but differences fundemental enough to justify complete different infrastructures. They will rarely break bread together. Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations of the same Book have blown Northern Ireland to bits over the years.

Now - statistically speaking, to keep it simple, lets say there's fifty different flavours of Christianity out there (There's actually a heck of a lot more, and let's discount for a second Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc). The ONE SINGLE CHURCH to get it right, could be any one of these. Is it your church? You've got a 2% chance, at best. Statistically, your Church is on the wrong path, with the wrong interpretation of the Bible. Chances are 98% that you're wasting your time, and should look to join a different church.

 

Matters of the soul like religion, are subjective in its very nature, and governments shouldn't meddle with it or even give recognition to its existence. A government should look down on its subjects and smile at its petty foolishness like belief in supernatural beings, but not interfere. And for a government to give recognition to ONE religion, to have ONE STATE CHURCH (like the Anglicans in the UK) with a 98% failure rate is a bit risque as far as application of public funds are concerned.

To a point you are correct. There are many varieties of Christian churches (Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion unto themselves as are Mormons), for the most part all of those churches are the same. Some have split over how baptisms are performed; some over priests/pastors being married or not; some over whether women can be pastors or not; some over the importance of the sacrements; etc. But as eMTee stated, there are central biblical truths that all Christians believe - else they are not truly Christians.

 

Statistically, if you are truly a Christian - be it Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Epicopalian, Pentecostal, Mennonite, or non-denominational - you have a 100% probability of going to Heaven. Being a Christian is not about the name on the sign in front of the building you meet in.

[Calminian]

There are many denominations claiming to be "the Church" and to be "Christian",

 

Actually you'll probably be surprised to learn that traditional denomination do not make this claim. There are some christians cults that do, but traditional denominations like baptists, methodists, presbies, etc. do not believe themselves to be the exclusive church.

 

but how many are actually fallowing the teachings of the very book they base their faith on?

 

I think so and oddly enough I think denominationalism proves it. Before denominationalism, governments and churches were basically one entity. This was not good for the church and often shut out needed debate on various doctrinal issues. But when denominational freedom began to spread, something amazing happened. Instead of widespread disagreement on major issues, there came amazing unity in essential christian doctrines such as the trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, not of works, etc. etc.. Yes there is disagreement over many issues but all the denominations agree these are non essential as to ones identity as a christian.

 

And you may also be interested to know these disagreements are are actually sanctioned in the Bible. The apostle Paul knew there would be matters on which christians would disagree and gave guidelines on how they should be handled. For anyone confused about this, I would highly recommend a study of Romans chapter 14.

[Fishteacher73]

Calminian:

First Let me welcom you to Hypography. ALways good to have some new input.

 

Second, your conclusions may be based on your specific experiences, most peples are, unfortunately I have experienced first hand the devise and isolationist view of many of the denominations. This may not be the "official" view point of said sects, that does not always translate into practice for the parishioners. There is a facade of union, but many personally feel that individuals from "other" sects are incorrect. I know methodists families that would not let children date outside the church, not even babtist, much less a mormon. The dissent among the denominations has cooled, but the schism is still there at some level.

[Calminian]

Calminian:

First Let me welcom you to Hypography. ALways good to have some new input.

 

Thanks FT, glad I dropped by. I’m just wandering surfer that thought I’d drop in and give my 2¢. I appreciate the kind welcome. I don't have much to contribute in the area of science, but perhaps I have some theological and philosophical insights that might be appreciated. We’ll see.

 

Second, your conclusions may be based on your specific experiences, most peples are, unfortunately I have experienced first hand the devise and isolationist view of many of the denominations.

 

I've been a christian many years and have studied doctrinal difference of various denominations for many years. I can assure you even the most fundamental churches do not believe their denomination to be the only true church. This is not to say they don't believe they are correct in their opinions, but the dogmatism you say you've experienced is not the norm. In fact you will find they dogmatically believe they are not the exclusive church.

 

This may not be the "official" view point of said sects, that does not always translate into practice for the parishioners. There is a facade of union, but many personally feel that individuals from "other" sects are incorrect.

 

That's a totally different issue. Of course they think other sects are wrong on various issues. I myself think I have a grasp on many issues and therefore believe that other christians are wrong about them. So what? This is not what unity is about. I don't need to agree with my christian brothers on every issue. But christians are remarkably united on very core essential doctrines like, the nature of God, how one gets to heaven, the nature of Jesus, etc..

 

I know methodists families that would not let children date outside the church, not even babtist, much less a mormon.

 

This is also a totally different issue. Wise parents know compatibility is as important as warm fuzzy loving feelings. Religious compatibility is crucial for a happy marriage. You don't even have to be a christian to understand this. I'll betcha Dr. Lara would support these families 100%.

[eMTee]

Actually you'll probably be surprised to learn that traditional denomination do not make this claim. There are some christians cults that do, but traditional denominations like baptists, methodists, presbies, etc. do not believe themselves to be the exclusive church.

being the exclusive church as in what? meaning that they believe their denomination being the only true church? There are those who think that, but when I stated that I didn't mean it in that way. I ment like many people who claim christianity, there are many denominations that that are false churches because they do not teach the Gospel.

 

 

 

I think so and oddly enough I think denominationalism proves it. Before denominationalism, governments and churches were basically one entity. This was not good for the church and often shut out needed debate on various doctrinal issues. But when denominational freedom began to spread, something amazing happened. Instead of widespread disagreement on major issues, there came amazing unity in essential christian doctrines such as the trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, not of works, etc. etc.. Yes there is disagreement over many issues but all the denominations agree these are non essential as to ones identity as a christian.

I agree, there are many disagreements between every denomination, but that doesnt mean that they arent true Christian, as long as they got the major issues in line with the Bible's teaching (which is what you mentioned)

 

And you may also be interested to know these disagreements are are actually sanctioned in the Bible. The apostle Paul knew there would be matters on which christians would disagree and gave guidelines on how they should be handled. For anyone confused about this, I would highly recommend a study of Romans chapter 14.

there is issues about baptizm, eternal security, daily repentence for salvation, predestination, head coverings, woman preachers, even 6 day creation and leteracy of the Bible. but I do not thimk these things make any of these Christian or un-Christian. It's all in your relationship with God.

[Southtown]

Chances are 98% that you're wasting your time, and should look to join a different church.

Unless you actually attempt to interpret the scriptures on your own and verify the doctirines of churches you attend rather than just flipping a coin or following the crowd.

[IrishEyes]

:rolleyes: I don't mean to appear arrogant but how can you defend 'religion' when there are so many inconsistencies in teaching??? That means you are defending inconsistency.

Defend the Bible but don't defend 'religion' because it is erroneous.

If your religion teaches straight from the Bible, how is it erroneous? I guess I'm missing the point.

Defending the Bible is ok, because it's giant puzzle that can be understood under careful examination and study. Right?

But defending a church, which represents a religion, that teaches from the Bible, and tries to put the puzzle together, is inconsistent?

So is a group Bible study inconsistent, or does that still fall under playing with the puzzle? Is puzzle piecing only allowed when you are alone? Or can you invite a friend to help? I'm just wondering where finding out answers with a group of people crosses the line to inconsistent and erroneous.

[Southtown]

Where people go wrong is word-of-mouth doctrine. When Christians start believing things just because their denominations do, without verifying them by scripture, error is allowed to persist. The same goes for non-believers observing any inconsistencies in a church. Things have to be verified scripturally before any observed human error can be viewed as error in the religion itself.

[eMTee]

:) "Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you 'all speak the same thing', and that there be 'no divisions' among you; but that you be perfectly joined together 'in the same mind' and in 'the same judgement'." (1 Cor. 1:10)

 

'All speak the same thing' means they are all saying exactly 'the same doctrine'. The 'same mind' and the 'same judgement' means they are 'perfectly' reconciled with 'the same message'. Otherwise, it would be called inconsistent.

 

Also, the word 'divisions' means 'factions, groups' as in 'denominations'.

 

And how can it be otherwise, there is only 'one' Bible - there can only be 'one' right teaching. God is not confused - but people have confused things badly.

 

I agree, the verse is 'telling' each person to be of the same mind, and not have divisions, but as people go, we have diffrent opinions about everything. but it's not saying that if everyone has not agreed on everything, that they are all false doctrines (meaning Christianity is no longer true)

 

I go to a nondenominational Church, so we are a plain Bible believing Church. When it comes down to it, all Christians are joined togeather in one mind about the importance of Faith and Christ, and the judgment in not threw him.

[jerryo]

'Truth' is based on an assumtion that there is such a thing :)

[infamous]

'Truth' is based on an assumtion that there is such a thing :)

Truth is reality and it most certainly exists weather-or-not we have a clear view of it. Reality exists even though every individual may have a different interpertation of what it means to them personally. Without absolutes, logic suffers. Without logic, our minds and thoughts are a waist. Come back down to earth, the Truth is we all live and die here.