Just supposing...........

[Shaker]

I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.

Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.

Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.

Yes but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.

There is no clouting necessary and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.

In terms of clouting from a dominant position in terms of numbers
That would be British Secular Humanists.

[Sassy]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.

King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.


King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.

The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.

God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.

King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.

[Sassy]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.

[Sassy]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

The truth is that the bible supports the beliefs I have expressed.
But the inner truth comes from God through the Spirit.
Holding on to belief not built in Christ is merely sand castles...

[Shaker]

Yes

Just that one word is quite sufficient, Vlad

but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.

F'tang f'tang ole biscuit barrel.

There is no clouting necessary

Lambeth Palace and the Vatican seem to think otherwise.

and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.

Irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes

Just that one word is quite sufficient, Vlad

but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.

F'tang f'tang ole biscuit barrel.

There is no clouting necessary

Lambeth Palace and the Vatican seem to think otherwise.

and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.

Irrelevant.

Oh yes let's turn our heads, waggle fingers in front of face, whistle and move swiftly on from those little embarrasments eh, Shaker.

[Shaker]

It's quite clear to us all that you don't know an embarrassment when you see one, Vladdypops 

[Hope]

Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.

Sass, note that I said John's Gospel.  That is different from the 3 letters of John. 

[Hope]

King James Bible

Sass, why the insistence on the King James Bible?  As we know now, it is a flawed translation, despite its towering language.  James gave especial instructions that it should reflect the episcopal structure and the ecclesiology of the Church of England of the time - and hence the nature of monarchy that he enjoyed.  As a result, there are elements that don't properly match the original languages of the Bible, there are elements that rely for understanding on the early-17th century meanings of words - many of which meanings have changed over the centuries - and also reflect an outdated understanding of what Greek and Hebrew that the authors of the AV had access to.

As you know, it was written in order to provide the Bible in the (English) vernacular; 20th and 21st century British English vernacular (let alone that of American English) has moved on and the current crop of translations are simply providing for you and I what James wanted to provide for the people of his time 400 years ago.

[floo]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.

And yours are?

[Hope]

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith.  The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human.  Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not.  I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.

Sects and cults

are by no means unique to Christianity.  Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies.  The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take.  Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.

[Shaker]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

[floo]

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith.  The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human.  Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not.  I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.

Sects and cults

are by no means unique to Christianity.  Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies.  The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take.  Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

[Hope]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

OK, you have the followers of Dawkins, of Hitchens, of Sam Harris, and of various other celebratory atheists.  As has been seen on this board alone, there are those amongst these followers who will damn with faint praise those celebatheists that they don't follow. 

Those are what could be termed 'cults' as they idolise a certain person; sect-wise, you have what some call 'high church' atheists and 'low church' atheists. Dawkins, Hitchen and other 'academic' atheists seem to fit into the former category, whilst more ordinary, everyday atheists seem to fit into the latter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith.  The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human.  Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not.  I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.

Sects and cults

are by no means unique to Christianity.  Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies.  The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take.  Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

Incorrect.
It is those who make either an explicit or implicit positive assertion
who have the burden of proof.

Credibility is about belief and unless you correct yourself on this matter you are effectively raising what you personally believe to an undeserved status.

[Hope]

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence.  As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores.  You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist.  Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters.  All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.

[floo]

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith.  The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human.  Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not.  I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.

Sects and cults

are by no means unique to Christianity.  Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies.  The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take.  Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

Incorrect.
It is those who make either an explicit or implicit positive assertion
who have the burden of proof.

Credibility is about belief and unless you correct yourself on this matter you are effectively raising what you personally believe to an undeserved status.

You don't half talk some garbage Vlad! Credibility isn't about belief. Stating something like the resurrection, for instance, is true without the slightest bit of evidence to support that notion, lacks any credibility whatsoever, however much someone wishes it to be true.

[floo]

Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.

Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence.  As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores.  You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist.  Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters.  All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.

Unless you can prove what you call additional parameters exist, you have NO evidence!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Credibility isn't about belief.

LOL

[Gordon]

I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence.  As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores.  You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist.  Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters.  All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.

I don't think you actually do though. What you actually present as evidence here is exclusively what people have thought, claimed and recorded - and all this may be no more than a consequence of their biology without the means to demonstrate that what they thought, claimed and recorded is true beyond the people element.

So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.

Yes Hope....... you need to use science to prove the supernatural.
Nothing else mind, just the supernatural.

Gordon confuses common sense with science.

Gordon calling religion fiction is a positive assertion.....get proving old son.

[Shaker]

OK, you have the followers of Dawkins, of Hitchens, of Sam Harris, and of various other celebratory atheists.  As has been seen on this board alone, there are those amongst these followers who will damn with faint praise those celebatheists that they don't follow. 

Those are what could be termed 'cults' as they idolise a certain person

No, they could only be termed 'cults' if you've taken over from Vlad in thinking that anybody who expresses respect and admiration for somebody's work is equal to 'idolising' them. That's an opinion and a remarkably silly one at that, but an opinion is all that it is. Who 'idolises' Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Nobody that I know of. Plenty of people (atheists and theists alike) like these men and enjoy their work - I should know, I'm one of them - and some other atheists and theists can't stand them; but nobody treats their pronouncements as infallible and anything they say or do as exempt from criticism, which is how actual sects and cults tend to operate. You know, actual sects and cults - the religious ones, with immutable dogmas and leaders who can't be questioned or challenged in any way. The leaders of actual sects and cults - Jim Jones; David Koresh et hoc genus omne -, rather than throwing their ideas out there and inviting, in fact welcoming robust criticism and debate, tend to react rather badly when challenged and when they think there's any threat to the power they wield over the credulous. 

As I fully expected, you're making this shit up as you go along - and that's Vlad's job. Atheism doesn't have sects or cults at all, which is pretty much as you'd expect for a stance defined by lack of belief in one thing and one thing alone. "What could be termed" is just another way of saying "I think" with an added attempt to give it a patina of rigour, instead of it simply being an unfounded opinion.

[Gordon]

So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.

Yes Hope....... you need to use science to prove the supernatural.
Nothing else mind, just the supernatural.

Gordon confuses common sense with science.

Gordon calling religion fiction is a positive assertion.....get proving old son.

I actually said 'indistinguishable from fiction', Vlad, so since you guys and not me are claiming the divine exists how about you do something to eliminate the risks I've mentioned.

For example, with regard to say the 'walking on water' claim, and since I'm sure you will agree that it isn't unknown for people to tell lies, on what basis can I eliminate the risk of lies in respect of this claim?

[Shaker]

Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence.  As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores.  You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist.  Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters. 

There goes the fallacy alarm!