The Kingdom of God-men

@philokalia said
There is a single, correct Christianity; it is a fact.

But it is important to be sympathetic to the way that others interpret it as many of their hearts are sincere.

@rajk999 said
Agreed, and that single correct Christianity must come from the teachings of Christ otherwise it cannot be rightly referred to as Christianity. So the question is what was the intention of Jesus Christ in His preaching of His Gospel. What did he tell his disciples to go out and preach? Certainly it is not what Christianity preaches today.

@moonbus said
I agree completely, and that is why I cannot agree with Sonship's claim that "church" is a beautiful word which represents all that is positive and good in Jesus and Christians.

Thread 190940

The church may be what initially interests people in searching for God, but it is ultimately what most hinders them from finding Him.

I have a much more realistic view of the situation of believers on this earth then both of you. Neither one of you Rajk999 or moonbus is able to follow me.

Right now I think there might be more hope for moonbus than there is for Rajk999 who I think has doctrines of demons he teaches as supposed Christian teachings.

@sonship said
I have a much more realistic view of the situation of believers on this earth then both of you. Neither one of you Rajk999 or moonbus is able to follow me.

Right now I think there might be more hope for moonbus than there is for Rajk999 who I think has doctrines of demons he teaches as supposed Christian teachings.

@sonship said
I have a much more realistic view of the situation of believers on this earth then both of you. Neither one of you Rajk999 or moonbus is able to follow me.

Right now I think there might be more hope for moonbus than there is for Rajk999 who I think has doctrines of demons he teaches as supposed Christian teachings.

@moonbus

It is not self flattery. But a complex subject is not addressed adequately in a few short paragraphs convenient for you to fly through chit chat style.

You are here for chit - chat and not serous in depth historical analysis of the history of denominations, genuine local churches, groups of Christian assemblies.

Your kind drops by for a few chit chat quips that you can read in 15 seconds thinking it proves you know so much.

And the irony is that from one guy I get "You're too soft." And from another guy I get the opposite - "You're way too hard and unfair."

So when speaking of the history of Christian assemblies on earth since the first century, I get is from both sides - "Naïve and rose colored optimism" and "unloving sectarian elitism." Damned if you do / Damned if you don't.

Not many here have ever been truly interested in an objective and biblical and historical analysis. Over the years one of two showed some maturity in this regard, but not most.
Including you. You just want just enough history to vindicate your atheism.

@sonship said
@moonbus

It is not self flattery. But a complex subject is not addressed adequately in a few short paragraphs convenient for you to fly through chit chat style.

You are here for chit - chat and not serous in depth historical analysis of the history of denominations, genuine local churches, groups of Christian assemblies.

Your kind drops by for a few chit cha ...[text shortened]... ut not most.
Including you. You just want just enough history to vindicate your atheism.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I asked you show me where I am misguided.
You wouldn't or couldn't.

Where are the twisted texts? No answer.

Where is the combining passages as to teach something unbiblical? No answer beyond a vague. "Well, I just don't like it."

You have no substance to your criticism.
You have an emotional dislike. That's all.

Give an example of only TWO . . . . I say TWO passages that you feel I combine in a way that puts forth a heretical concept.

I'm not going to hold my breath.
You're track record on backing up your diatribes is miserable.

TWO PASSAGES ! Just give an example of TWO verses that you think I combined to put forth a heretical notion.

You're the heroic atheist here boldly championing orthodox Christian teaching. Right? Give us TWO passages I use in a combined way to put forth a wrong teaching.

See if you can possibly do it without using either your favorite words "Witness Lee" or "cult" or "charlatan".

@sonship said
@moonbus

It is not self flattery. But a complex subject is not addressed adequately in a few short paragraphs convenient for you to fly through chit chat style.

You are here for chit - chat and not serous in depth historical analysis of the history of denominations, genuine local churches, groups of Christian assemblies.

Your kind drops by for a few chit cha ...[text shortened]... ut not most.
Including you. You just want just enough history to vindicate your atheism.

@moonbus

Atheism does not need any vindication. It is the default position. Everyone is born atheist

You heard it here folks. The rock outside in your back yard is an atheist.
The great default position of all people is atheism.

Atheism means - it breaths.
Atheism means - its alive.
Does the heart beat? Then its an atheist - the default existence.
Its the great default state of all things.

Babies are atheists.
Why it is only normal and default to be an atheist.

Its an unassailable, default, un falsifiable normal state of man.
The new atheists need a new definition of atheism to render debate invalid on it
period.

Moonbus, Have you been everywhere in the universe and in every moment in all time?

ATHEISM is a BELIEF according to PHILOSOPHERS

YouTube

Are Atheists Biased?

YouTube