the age of the christian god

You mean applications, not interpretations. While some of these denominations read a lot inbetween the lines, (or in the case of Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, actually change a few things), they differ mostly in the presentation of Jesus' salvation.

Some use conservative readings (believing that the closer you stay to the text the safer you are of not misinterpreting something), and others are liberal (to the point of standing inbetween the Bible and the "layperson").

We had a person here from North Ireland recently who said we shouldn't even try to understand the complexities of what is going on there. What is going on there has long since not had anything to do with the Bible.

Hitler. Here are two quotes:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Does this sound like any Christian you know. And by the way, there would be no Protestants if nobody disagreed with the way the Catholic church used to apply the Bible.

Romans 3:9
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[ 3:9 Or worse] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
(Whole Chapter: Romans 3_In context: Romans 3:8-10)

Romans 3:29
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After a thorough investigation, hopefully. Otherwise I wouldn't dare hire you to do any research for me as a scientist. If all scientists had that mind set science would not have advanced thus far [and we don't even know how far ahead we are anyway].

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Johann

Typical atheist hypocritical thinking, tell the world you don't believe in something and then you turn around and use that same pillar to prop up your point. So you don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan, Heaven or Hell but you do believe in Sin? What a joker.

I agree it was childish- as it was intended to be and as far as my Pastor is concerned, you're jumping to conclusions, you don't know me from Adam. My reply to you was intended to be a reflection of your very childish post about not caring about "any point" a Christian has to make and that their opinions have no relevance. Your own reply back indicates the level of hypocrisy to that claim.

Most of your reply is about trying to convince Christians to be tolerant of others, respect others beliefs, what they're allowed to do and not do. So apparently it is perfectly okay for you to tell Christains what to believe but the opposite doesn't hold true?

At the very least, in having you slow down and read your own words back again, I made my point because you yourself admitted:

I agree. Yes, to the first, no to the second. Even you yourself are trying change others, so how can you possibly criticize others for doing so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenyar,

Semantics.

The fact remains that a majority of the blood spilt on God's green earth was from religious disagreements that erupted into a fountain of violence.

I agree that N. Ireland's feud is hardly about religion, but it did BEGIN that way. The point that it escaladed is of no consequence. If you want another, more recent example look at Israel. There are a lot of political aspects to that conflict, but the reason that there is such hate and deaths is because the Israelis and the Palestinians choose to be intolerable of each other's beliefs.

~Robin

 

i will just postulate the opposite. With a closed mind science would have come to a standstill many years ago...decades...centuries....

i do not know at what level you are practising science, but during the education phase science seems more fixed than it really is. That is because you are presented with 'facts' all the time. Later these facts disappear and are exchanged with data and interpretation.

 

I'm not sure I get the first paragraph as antithetical to what I stated. Anyway, I am well aware of the nature of science and the scientific community and the evolution of these. That is why I argue like I do.

 

my mistake then...i misinterpreted your statement