1. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    06 Mar '17 04:05
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-largest-religion-in-every-state-other-than-christianity-2014-6
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91676
    06 Mar '17 05:26
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-largest-religion-in-every-state-other-than-christianity-2014-6
    Can you give me the gist before posting sites please
  3. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    06 Mar '17 07:53
    It. Left us alone. It is pretty hard core about that.
  4. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    06 Mar '17 16:00
    They definitely got Utah long because that's Mormonism not buddhism.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    07 Mar '17 04:25
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    They definitely got Utah long because that's Mormonism not buddhism.
    Last I heard, the LDS church is Christian.
  6. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    07 Mar '17 07:14
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Last I heard, the LDS church is Christian.
    That doesn't make it true.
  7. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    09 Mar '17 02:211 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    That doesn't make it true.
    But it also doesn't make it likely to appear on a "list of largest religions in every state other than Christianity".
  8. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    09 Mar '17 02:39
    Suzianne: Last I heard, the LDS church is Christian.

    Originally posted by RBHILL
    That doesn't make it true.
    "Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body." wiki.

    Is that not a form of Christianity? I'm not asking if you agree with it or approve of it.
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    09 Mar '17 15:391 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    They definitely got Utah long because that's Mormonism not buddhism.
    Does the logic behind your position exclude only Mormonism due to certain of its beliefs/practices and if so which are they?

    Or does the logic exclude all all but one denomination which is the one true Christian denomination and if so which one is it?
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Mar '17 15:572 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    Does the logic behind your position exclude only Mormonism due to certain of its beliefs/practices and if so which are they?

    Or does the logic exclude all all but one denomination which is the one true Christian denomination and if so which one is it?
    In the New Testament there is the word church and there is also the word churches. Since we see the word churches we understand that there is more that there is a plurality to the concept of a church.

    The next important question is then - How does the New Testament determine one church from another church ? If there are churches then what discriminates one such church from another such church ?

    Is the distinction made by nationality?
    is the distinction made by race?
    Is the distinction made by street address?
    Is the distinction made by a certain pastor?
    Is the distinction made by a certain very useful servant of God?
    Is the distinction made by a certain practice?
    Is the distinction made by a certain formula of baptism or a certain spiritual gift or a certain interpretation of the second coming of Christ?
    Is the distinction made by a country?
    Is the distinction made by someone's home?

    Except for one carefully examined caveat, the answer to all these questions is a resounding No. That is if we are talking about what the Bible reveals.

    If you want to talk about what man has done in his kind of traditions, that may be different. But in terms of what the Bible teaches there is one answer.

    Churches [plural] were designated by geography - specifically by locality.

    IE.

    " I was in spirit on the Lord's Day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

    Saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches:

    to Ephesus and to Smryna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laocidea.

    And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands." (Rev. 1:10-12)


    That's seven localities and seven corresponding churches.
    That is seven cities each matched with one local church.
    If those churches are normal they are not denominations, not divisions in the universal church. They are not divisions as works of the flesh. They are genuine God ordained local assemblies if they practice the universal oneness of, in principle, receiving all fellow Christians.

    The caveat which I will not deal with here is that four places in the NT speak of the church in someone's house. Of course in the early days the local churches gather sometimes in someone's house.
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Mar '17 19:414 edits
    Have you heard someone say " the White Church" or "the Black Church"?
    That is a division, a denominating which damages the nature of the church.

    Have you heard of a Lutheran Church or a Weslyan Church ?
    That is also a division damaging the true nature of the Christian church.

    Have you heard of a Methodist Church or a Baptist Church or a Pentecostal Church?
    Those are divisions, denomination which pervert the nature of the church.

    Other divisions might be -

    A Japanese Church
    A Chinese Church
    An American Church
    A Church of England
    A Dutch Church
    A Reform Church
    A Quaker Church
    A Watchman Nee Church (you thought I was going to leave that out, didn't you?)
    A World Public Church

    A German Church
    A Native American Church
    A Calvinist Church
    A Korean Church
    A Brethren Church
    A French or Philippine or Mexican or Canadian or New England or Texan or Presbyterian or Southern Baptist Church are all deformities. They represent a work of the flesh.

    The New Testament warns that those who practice factions, divisions, sects could be in danger of being disqualified from inheriting the kingdom of God.

    In fact the Apostle Paul associates factions, divisions, sects along with other works of the flesh such as fornication, idolatry, uncleaness, bouts of drunkeness. In other words, to God is it a serious error to DIVIDE up Christ's church into factions of other things besides locality of dwelling.

    " And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as
    fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, FACTIONS, DIVISIONS [denominations], SECTS, envyings, bouts of drunkeness, carousings,

    and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand, even as I have said before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)


    Creating "Churches" out of divisive factions can be just as much a fleshly sin as sorcery, fornication, idolatry and having bouts of drunkeness. So men should not easily presume to create a Church based upon some point of strife.
  12. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Mar '17 20:046 edits
    Martin Luther, IMO, was a great servant of the Lord.
    (By no means a perfect one)
    There should not be a Lutheran Church.

    John Wesley and Charles Wesley were both used by God in Christian service IMO.
    There should not be a church belonging solely to them no matter how useful they were.
    There should not be a Weslyan Church.
    it is a work of the flesh, a division.

    Baptism is biblical. If you ask me to baptize you I will most likely immerse you in water.
    This I think is right and scriptural.
    But there should not be a Church based on this practice.
    There should not be a "Baptist" Church.
    That is a faction, a division.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Mar '17 20:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    "Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body." wiki.

    Is that not a form of Christianity? I'm not asking if you agree with it or approve of it.
    I'm sure it is to you.

    Mormons believe that God was once a man like us. If a man lives a good enough life he can be God of his own world.
  14. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Mar '17 20:10
    Now what about you have some believers who are all German speaking?
    Can you have a meeting of all German speaking Christians??
    Of course you can. There is, in principle, no problem with having a German speaking meeting of Christian brothers and sisters.

    But you should not [edited] have a German Church. That is a step too far and unbiblical.

    Let us say in the city of Trenton New Jersey you preached the Gospel. And when you did only Spanish speaking people responded. And all those Spanish speaking people got saved and want to have a church. You may have "the church in Trenton".

    They may have Spanish speaking meetings. There is no problem to having a language meeting. They should not have a Spanish Church. That is called a work of the flesh, a faction to go so far as to make a "Church" Spanish.

    Now you are an American. You happen to be in, let us say, Seoul South Korea. You preach the Gospel and a few other Americans get saved and want to meet.
    There is no problem to having a meeting whose practical need is to meet people who speak a certain language. Let's say English.

    But it is wrong to make that gathering an American Church.
    It is also wrong for some Korean to say "You are in South Korea. You should come to a South Korean Church."

    Churches do not belong to countries.
    Churches in the New Testament belong to cities.
    Churches do not belong to any ethnic group.
    Churches belong to cities.

    A Korean speaking meeting is, in principle not a problem.
    A English speaking meeting is, in principle not a problem.

    An English Church or an American Church or a Korean Church is a division.
    This is an expression of the old man.
    Churches are local and belong to localities.
Back to Top