Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?

2007-06-24T03:22:11Z

InHisImage:

Why were entries here deleted? Who deleted them? [[User:Seekcommon]]

So, Is the Bible infallible? Should all Christians and Jews believe everything the Bible says and live by ALL it's rules?

:Surely not. It is up to us as discerning people to pick and choose between the various statements and sentiments within the testaments to determine what is and isn't relevant today. For example, according to the [[capital punishment|article]], capital punishment is not generally supported by Christians for non-murder offenses, despite Exodus 21 listing its appropriateness for many more minor offenses. This means something very powerful. It means that we Christians cannot say "this is right because the Bible says so", but have to say "this is right because I deem that passage still relevant". It means we need to be responsible for our views. Thus the controversy over grey issues such as [[homosexuality]]. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: Then why is a section of the conservative community upset over Darwin and evolution and such? Dismissing evolution as mere theory demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to science and theories and arguments. Why does so much of science terrifies a significant fraction of the conservative movement? Is science a creation of the Devil then? Was Darwin put on this earth by the Devil to confound God fearing humans? Why did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo for saying the Earth goes round the Sun? And why did it take them 300+ years to say "Sorry"? It remains an issue of power and having people who can follow them no matter what and the Bible is held as that hammer to keep people down when needed. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]]

::Absolutely. As a Christian, I would be the first to admit the hypocrisy of our faith over the last few centuries. The main reason for this, of course, is that the church is made up of many many people, each with their own viewpoint. I see no reason why the modern Catholic church should apologise for the treatment of Galileo, any more than Britain should apologise to the aboriginals of America and Australia, or for the burning of Protestants or Catholics under the respective Tudor king or queen of England. It is something done by our ancestors, and not by us. What matters is what we say today. There is no reason why science and religion can't coexist. I accept that almost all Christians no longer believe the early chapters of the Old Testament actually happened. They are, I believe, generally accepted to be metaphors - an easy handle for people to understand God's achievement in creating the World. In times gone by, this is illustrated nicely by the idea of Him creating everything in 6 days in nice stages. To the modern reader, this no longer makes sense (the concept of a day being a length of time before the Solar System was created is meaningless in itself). The modern thinker, then, can rejoice in God's creation of the Universe. The divine energy that created the big bang. The force that gave everything direction. The mind that thought through the rules of physics, and the purity of mathematics. The guiding hand that let today's species exist. The gifts of spirituality, of self-awareness, and the immortal soul. I think understanding more about the nature of the universe makes God seem all the more wonderful. [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 22:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The bible simply cannot be taken literally, mostly because it contradicts itself everywhere. Let's look at the gospels of Luke and Matthew. One says Jesus' relation to David was 27 entries long, the other says 42. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that only a descendent of David can be Christ the messiah. Since Joseph supposedly possessed David in his lineage, and since Christ was of virgin birth, does this mean that Jesus was not the messiah? Also, what about the other gospels that aren't integrated into the bible, such as ones that describe Jesus mischievously casting spells on his friends and turning mud into birds. Additionally, the gospel of Matthew states that Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem during one of Caesar Augustus' census activities. However, there was no census until 6 AD, and it was done by Qurinius, not Caesar Augustus. It's all just fairy tales, and poorly-integrated fairy tales at that as well.

:Fairy tale is unnecessarily harsh. Neither Matthew nor Luke were historians, in the modern interpretation of the word. In those times history was presented very differently from how it is now. The central message was brought through, as well as all the key points, and the other detail was embellished around it. An example is Joseph's home town. Both authors knew that the important points were that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth. In Luke, they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem for a census. In Matthew, they lived in Bethlehem, then fled to Nazareth via Egypt. This embellishment still done today - preachers often invent details in the story in order to make the message stronger, or make the characters more personable. People even think that the animals were all put on the Ark in twos, despite the text of the Bible saying the clean ones were in sevens. I think the authors would be upset to know that people were concentrating on the irrelavent detail instead of the main ideas.[[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocricy without Faith==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. Those Truths are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It only betrays the level of their ignorance and illiteracy. Such as those who claim to be Christian and then proceed to criticise and slander the basis of their supposed beliefs. A Christian nows the difference between living under the Law of the Old Testament and living under Grace of the New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a sinner; I eat shellfish and wear clothes made out of two materials. Guess I'm going to hell for that.
:The real issue is whether or not the Bible is still relevant in todays society; do you really think God meant for us to be ignorant and unresponsive, and live the same way until the end of time?
:God knew that when we gained more knowledge, we would (hopefully) put it to use. But, unfortunately, we have not; there is still a ''debate'' over homosexuality. We will never know which modern Bible is accurate (if any); It has been translated so much that it has been overly politicized. And lots of the Bible is pretty hard to take seriously, such as a global flood; instant, recent creation; destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Knowledge without understanding is useless. What you eat or wear has nothing to do with whether or not you're a sinner. The Bible I'm reading hasn't been politicized, and hasn't changed for over 2,000 years. Geological evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Archeological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has already been proven with the materials that make fire and brimstone right there amongst the ruins. The same with a young Earth. Scientifically and archeologically documented. I've seen and read it. Rejecting God's Word is a choice you can make on your own. Making false and misleading statements that are ignorant of the facts is mere politics. As well as just plain hard to take seriously.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

As Roopilots6 I have studied the Bible for many years and the more I read the more convinced I am that it is accurate in every sense.It seems those who read it without the properly prayerful attitude and desire for truth don't get much out of it. Modern archeological discoveries repeatedly confirm the accounts in the Bible. God states that He is unchanging and that heaven and earth will disappear before one scrap of His word will. From my point of view if He said 5000 years ago that crabs were unclean as food I'm not about to argue the point. He made them so He ought to know and in light of the pollution in today's world I'm not too enthused about consuming bottom feeders anyway.~~InHisImage

Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong

2007-06-23T19:24:10Z

InHisImage:

There is a proliferation of 'revealed texts' within the world's major religions, with many contradictions and inconsistencies between them about the way to worship, how to behave, and the different stances that should be adopted, not to say accounts of how the universe is ordered and was created.

Either God couldn't make his mind up as to what people should do, OR not all of these accounts can possibly be correct. If it is the latter, then if let us assume that most of them are inferior copies of the 'one true revealed text'. How then, is one supposed to know which that would be, and follow the right path? If we assume that God is not deliberately deceitful, and that he is omniscient, he would not have put mankind in such a position that we had to choose the one true text from amongst all the others, with no clear guidance. Hence, it must be the case that none of these is correct, and we have to make our own mind up.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There are basically only two religions: Grace - (unmerited favor - which is given through Holy Spirit quickening) and Works - which the "carnel" mind and the "natural" man believes) ie, I can find acceptance with God through my good works: Both contrasted in Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Pharasee and Publican.
All religions, except true Christianity, (encluding the religion of atheistic humanism - the worship of mans wisdom) are works religions. Some people who profess christianity, but rely on their supposed goodness for their salvation (like the Pharasee) are are part of the works group. It's interesting to consider that the Communist atheists used claims such as: we will have a "workers paradise" and a "utopia" - by the strength of mans mind and work. Anyhow, since we know that life exists, isn't it more REASONABLE to assume it always has been? (and that's God)
==We are on to you!==
Hey, Humanist, we all know how much you are down on all of the worlds religions. We've read all of your manifesters. It's funny when keep bashing God even though you really don't believe there is one. Keep telling us of your superior intellect that is able to single handedly make decisions for the common good of us all. Please, keep posting all of those baiting debate questions that show the rest of us foolish religionists who pray to our non-existing God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, i think that you should actually read what was first posted with an open, interested mind. Make an attempt to understand what is being said, as i am confident that you do in fact have a good intellect, you just need to use it in a more open way. What was said is quite interesting even for an atheist like myself, and raises a few interesting questions for religion. That is not to say that it disproves Gods existence, simply that i think that you would find it a lot more enjoyable if you took it upon yourself to either disprove what has been said in a logical and fair manner, or to supply a different theory, again in a logical manner. Please do attempt this, as i have found it far more entertaining then (in my case) simply insisting that there is no proof of God. Sincerely [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:09, 19 April 2007

::Gee, I thought I was just being sarcastic. Hint: I believe God exists and isn't being indecisive about it. So you think I don't have an open and interesting mind? Sorry to hear that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i've seen a few of your posts in other topics and from what i see, it seems that you are not prepared to listen to what other people have to say in a fair manner. I may be way off the mark here, im just calling it as i see it. That you believe that is fine, its just that i think that you should be open to other ideas and opinions rather then barricading yourself behind a wall of sarcasm and just general lack of manners. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:02, 20 April 2007

::So you went to the effort to profile me? I'm honoured! Maybe this is a cultural thing but sarcasm isn't wall building. Neither is it malicious. Responding to a post from my own unique viewpoint isn't ill mannered to me. So, yes, way off the mark here. Let's agree to just stay on the topic of debate.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i think sarcasm is wall building as it can make having a serious discussion quite difficult, especially on a web page where it isnt always easy to tell sarcasm. Maybe i am taking your blunt speech to seriously and seeing it as insulting rather then just you. But yes, i agree. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:52, 21 April 2007

==Alternate suggestion==
God is omnipotent. That is, all things are possible for God. Ergo, it is entirely possible that all religions are correct simultaneously, but we humans, being confined to simple binary-based logic, are not able to perceive this. QED. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, that is a totally different religion based on Theosophy. A belief that all religions are actually just one. A believer of any other religion won't buy into that. Not because they are binary thinkers, but because their beliefs have distinctions that set them apart from other beliefs.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: True; you are following the line of thinking of [[David Deutsch]] and [[David Kellogg Lewis]], whose philosophies claim that if you can create al logically possible world, then logically that world, can in fact exist, and under some definitions of reality, do existe somewhere in the [[Multiverse]].--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Different Point==
If I have an axe to grind, it is this: Whether or not you choose to believe in God, believing in a particular religion is a completely separate and independent personal decision. You can believe in god, and not be associate with any religion at all, and many people do in fact follow this path. However, there are many adherents of very different religions who claim that theirs is the only true text, and in following that logic, are prepared to kill & maim people of the opposite persuasion for no reason other than they see them as a threat to their beliefs. I cannot believe (I am sorry to those who say you cannot know the mind of God, but if God is minded to want me to go out and kill and maim other human beings in his name, then he is no god of mine) that any God worthy of the name would actually have created such a situation deliberately, by proliferating contradictory messages. This means that MOST of the world's religions must have invented their texts for their own reasons. How are we then expected to decide between these? On what basis? and how is it that they all attract adherents who are single minded, and so convinced that they are right? There is, to my mind, something fundamentally wrong with the idea of religion, per se, and following my logic above, wouuld lead me to conclude, not that god is indecisive, or that he doesn't exist, but that IF he exists, he would NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have provided a 'one true text', simply because it is so easy to produce facsimiles which have all the attributes of a true text. but are, in fact false. Following this line of thinking would lead logically to a rejection of all organised religions, and to declare all revealed texts to be a sham.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have found it a futile and vain exercise to presume what God will do. In the same manner that one would be able to presume what manner of logic a person would use to accuse the people of the worlds religions of being a sham. Especially when some of those religions have been around for thousands of years. History has taught us that some have used these religions for their wars and aspirations to power over others. It sounds like you prefer nihilism. Every person forms their own beliefs into doctrines that give them faith. This is the very definition of religion. If you hate all other religions it is only because your own demands it. Nihilists have been around for a long, long time. Who knows, maybe someday nihilism will be one of the major religions. But then it couldn't be, could it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

There are many different paths to heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are indeed. I've gone down many of those paths only to find out they were just cunningly devised fables. Often their version of Heaven is nothingness, oblivion. Sometimes just a fantasy. Many paths leading to many heavens with a god under every rock. Sorry, but I've already rejected all of the pagan religions. Why worship the creatures when their Creator is right there in front of you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't comment on whether or not God is indecisive as I don't think the One who created me is subject to my opinions. I do however believe that most of the world's major religions are not following the Biblical principles and have taught their own traditions in their place. i.e. Most religions keep Sunday as the Sabbath because they suscribe to the authority of the Roman church to change a law made by God Almighty.The powers that be in the Roman church have always admitted that Saturday was the 7th day Sabbath and claim the authority to change God's law by reason that most of the world has followed their lead. That doesn't make it right. The Bible says that the way is narrow and few will find it, meaning that most of the world will be deceived into false doctrines rather than taking the time and effort to discover the Biblical truth with prayer and diligent study. Salvation does require some effort on our part. We need to search for the truth and not be satisfied with what the common opinion appears to be at the time. www.sabbathtruth.com has some excellent information from members of all denominations on t his subject.``InHisImage

Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong

2007-06-23T19:23:15Z

InHisImage:

There is a proliferation of 'revealed texts' within the world's major religions, with many contradictions and inconsistencies between them about the way to worship, how to behave, and the different stances that should be adopted, not to say accounts of how the universe is ordered and was created.

Either God couldn't make his mind up as to what people should do, OR not all of these accounts can possibly be correct. If it is the latter, then if let us assume that most of them are inferior copies of the 'one true revealed text'. How then, is one supposed to know which that would be, and follow the right path? If we assume that God is not deliberately deceitful, and that he is omniscient, he would not have put mankind in such a position that we had to choose the one true text from amongst all the others, with no clear guidance. Hence, it must be the case that none of these is correct, and we have to make our own mind up.

--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There are basically only two religions: Grace - (unmerited favor - which is given through Holy Spirit quickening) and Works - which the "carnel" mind and the "natural" man believes) ie, I can find acceptance with God through my good works: Both contrasted in Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Pharasee and Publican.
All religions, except true Christianity, (encluding the religion of atheistic humanism - the worship of mans wisdom) are works religions. Some people who profess christianity, but rely on their supposed goodness for their salvation (like the Pharasee) are are part of the works group. It's interesting to consider that the Communist atheists used claims such as: we will have a "workers paradise" and a "utopia" - by the strength of mans mind and work. Anyhow, since we know that life exists, isn't it more REASONABLE to assume it always has been? (and that's God)
==We are on to you!==
Hey, Humanist, we all know how much you are down on all of the worlds religions. We've read all of your manifesters. It's funny when keep bashing God even though you really don't believe there is one. Keep telling us of your superior intellect that is able to single handedly make decisions for the common good of us all. Please, keep posting all of those baiting debate questions that show the rest of us foolish religionists who pray to our non-existing God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, i think that you should actually read what was first posted with an open, interested mind. Make an attempt to understand what is being said, as i am confident that you do in fact have a good intellect, you just need to use it in a more open way. What was said is quite interesting even for an atheist like myself, and raises a few interesting questions for religion. That is not to say that it disproves Gods existence, simply that i think that you would find it a lot more enjoyable if you took it upon yourself to either disprove what has been said in a logical and fair manner, or to supply a different theory, again in a logical manner. Please do attempt this, as i have found it far more entertaining then (in my case) simply insisting that there is no proof of God. Sincerely [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:09, 19 April 2007

::Gee, I thought I was just being sarcastic. Hint: I believe God exists and isn't being indecisive about it. So you think I don't have an open and interesting mind? Sorry to hear that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i've seen a few of your posts in other topics and from what i see, it seems that you are not prepared to listen to what other people have to say in a fair manner. I may be way off the mark here, im just calling it as i see it. That you believe that is fine, its just that i think that you should be open to other ideas and opinions rather then barricading yourself behind a wall of sarcasm and just general lack of manners. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:02, 20 April 2007

::So you went to the effort to profile me? I'm honoured! Maybe this is a cultural thing but sarcasm isn't wall building. Neither is it malicious. Responding to a post from my own unique viewpoint isn't ill mannered to me. So, yes, way off the mark here. Let's agree to just stay on the topic of debate.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well i think sarcasm is wall building as it can make having a serious discussion quite difficult, especially on a web page where it isnt always easy to tell sarcasm. Maybe i am taking your blunt speech to seriously and seeing it as insulting rather then just you. But yes, i agree. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:52, 21 April 2007

==Alternate suggestion==
God is omnipotent. That is, all things are possible for God. Ergo, it is entirely possible that all religions are correct simultaneously, but we humans, being confined to simple binary-based logic, are not able to perceive this. QED. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, that is a totally different religion based on Theosophy. A belief that all religions are actually just one. A believer of any other religion won't buy into that. Not because they are binary thinkers, but because their beliefs have distinctions that set them apart from other beliefs.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: True; you are following the line of thinking of [[David Deutsch]] and [[David Kellogg Lewis]], whose philosophies claim that if you can create al logically possible world, then logically that world, can in fact exist, and under some definitions of reality, do existe somewhere in the [[Multiverse]].--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Different Point==
If I have an axe to grind, it is this: Whether or not you choose to believe in God, believing in a particular religion is a completely separate and independent personal decision. You can believe in god, and not be associate with any religion at all, and many people do in fact follow this path. However, there are many adherents of very different religions who claim that theirs is the only true text, and in following that logic, are prepared to kill & maim people of the opposite persuasion for no reason other than they see them as a threat to their beliefs. I cannot believe (I am sorry to those who say you cannot know the mind of God, but if God is minded to want me to go out and kill and maim other human beings in his name, then he is no god of mine) that any God worthy of the name would actually have created such a situation deliberately, by proliferating contradictory messages. This means that MOST of the world's religions must have invented their texts for their own reasons. How are we then expected to decide between these? On what basis? and how is it that they all attract adherents who are single minded, and so convinced that they are right? There is, to my mind, something fundamentally wrong with the idea of religion, per se, and following my logic above, wouuld lead me to conclude, not that god is indecisive, or that he doesn't exist, but that IF he exists, he would NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have provided a 'one true text', simply because it is so easy to produce facsimiles which have all the attributes of a true text. but are, in fact false. Following this line of thinking would lead logically to a rejection of all organised religions, and to declare all revealed texts to be a sham.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have found it a futile and vain exercise to presume what God will do. In the same manner that one would be able to presume what manner of logic a person would use to accuse the people of the worlds religions of being a sham. Especially when some of those religions have been around for thousands of years. History has taught us that some have used these religions for their wars and aspirations to power over others. It sounds like you prefer nihilism. Every person forms their own beliefs into doctrines that give them faith. This is the very definition of religion. If you hate all other religions it is only because your own demands it. Nihilists have been around for a long, long time. Who knows, maybe someday nihilism will be one of the major religions. But then it couldn't be, could it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

There are many different paths to heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are indeed. I've gone down many of those paths only to find out they were just cunningly devised fables. Often their version of Heaven is nothingness, oblivion. Sometimes just a fantasy. Many paths leading to many heavens with a god under every rock. Sorry, but I've already rejected all of the pagan religions. Why worship the creatures when their Creator is right there in front of you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't comment on whether or not God is indecisive as I don't think the One who created me is subject to my opinions. I do however believe that most of the world's major religions are not following the Biblical principles and have taught their own traditions in their place. i.e. Most religions keep Sunday as the Sabbath because they suscribe to the authority of the Roman church to change a law made by God Almighty.The powers that be in the Roman church have always admitted that Saturday was the 7th day Sabbath and claim the authority to change God's law by reason that most of the world has followed their lead. That doesn't make it right. The Bible says that the way is narrow and few will find it, meaning that most of the world will be deceived into false doctrines rather than taking the time and effort to discover the Biblical truth with prayer and diligent study. Slavation does require some effort on our part. We need to search for the truth and not be satisfied with what the common opinion appears to be at the time. www.sabbathtruth.com has some excellent information from members of all denominations on t his subject.``InHisImage

Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?

2007-06-23T19:10:16Z

InHisImage:

It has been my understanding, that Baptisms originated with the purpose of cleansing the human soul of Original Sin. That being that human beings are born with the mark of the Sin of Adam and Eve. By becoming baptized, one cleanses his or her self of Original Sin. This was believed to be necessary to be preformed at birth, due to the fact that if a baby died without being baptized, under Catholic beliefs, the baby's soul would be sent to limbo, unable to reach heaven. Now, the Catholic church as dropped this doctrine, on the obvious account of it's controversy. However, my questions stands, if Catholics no longer see the unbaptized as going to hell, and Protestants never had such doctrine, as far as I understand, then why do we do it? I can't imagine a just God sending infants to hell by mere technicality of their birth.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because we can't spell "perform"? Oh, wait, that error must only be on the topics page. I'll fix it. As far as your question, I have no idea. Sounds pagan to me. Oh wait, I do have a thought - it is symbolic, for the parents and the community, of bringing the baby/child/convert into the Church. The water part is just traditional, a pastor/minister/priest could just give the kid a hug and say "welcome!" [[User:Human|Human]] 22:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Rituals, no matter what their origins, are very important to all religions and cultures: baptism is a ritual that welcomes new humans (or older people for some other denominations) into the church as God's child.

Baptism originated in the Bible. It's purpose is to symbolize the death of the old person of sin, his/her burial under the water, and the rebirth of the new sinless person after a conscious decision to follow the teachings of Christ and accept Him as one's Saviour. Babies, by the way, cannot make that decision.One needs to be of an age capable of making that decision. Baptism by immersion is the Biblical definition, as Jesus was baptized by John. He is to be our example.The death, burial and ressurection of Christ, which allows for our salvation, is symbolized by our baptism.``InHisImage

Dark Ages

2007-06-23T18:50:44Z

InHisImage:

The Dark Ages lasted roughly from AD 450 to 1000. They were the early part of the [[Europ]]ean [[Middle Ages]]. Few written documents and buildings of this time are left over. From this it is concluded that little was accomplished culturally or academically. However, how much was actually achieved, but was destroyed during the migration of nations is difficult to find out.

Dark Ages has also been explained as a period of spiritual darkness when the light of true Christianity was nearly snuffed out by the persecution and killing of millions of Christians and withholding of the Bible truths by organized "religion" which had more of a base in paganism than in Bible teachings.~ InHisImage

Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

2007-06-23T18:39:22Z

InHisImage:

The Episcopalians, but that's personal preference :P

I would say either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I belong to a non-denominational church and Reformed Baptist is everything I believe. The only thing I disagree with about Presbyterians is infant baptism. I could never baptize my child for any reasons.

I tend to be distrustful about denominations in general, but I tend to go with the Southern Baptists or the Methodists. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is that what ''you'' believe? Or would say, Ethiopian Orthodox[http://ethiopianorthodox.org/english/indexenglish.htm][http://sellassie.ourfamily.com/culture/church.html] be closer to what was taught in old times? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the central teachings of Christianity have changed through time? I am fairly sure it is trivial to show that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has not changed its teachings for at least a few hundred (if not a thousand or more) years - long before North America was a scribble on a map. And thus I ask, how can the Baptist church be closer to the central teachings of Christianity? And even more to the point - what are those central teachings? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll go for a long shot with Mormons.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I foresee a hornet's nest here, especially seeing as one of our best editors is a Mormon and has already come under fire for that on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Another reason this whole page should be AFD'd. What a ridiculous question, prima facie.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible tells us what the true remnant church will be like in the last days. It will be a world-wide movement, will teach exactly what the Bible says, will obey the doctrines of the Bible rather than those of man. Start with the 10 commandments. Which church still keeps the Sabbath? has no idols? has a worldwide mission statement? Study Revelation with a sincere desire to understand and ask for the guidance of the holy spirit. You will find your answer.--InHisImage

The answer to this question: Whatever denomination the answerer belongs to, probably. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Not for me...i picked the one I just thought sounded cool. The one you pick is most closely related to the one your parents picked.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, BTW, which one is the Mormon??? JK. I don't think anyone should be forced to reveal their personal beliefs to the world at large unless they wish to.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite is openly Mormon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

NP. Some of my best friends....--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole question strikes me as "Richard-ish"[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hijole (ee ho lay), seems like the Catholics are the furthest while the original Protestants were the closest. Either way, i think God is the best judge of that one. [[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

:I suppose this might be ''true'' if Christianity became static upon the Ascension (or maybe upon the death of the last original Apostle). However, Christianity is not static, it changes (I wouldn't want to use the term ''evolves'' on Conservapedia...). To whom did Christ say 'You are the Rock upon whom I found my Church'? Wasn't it Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (and therefore the first Pope). And didn't Christ say to Peter and the Apostles 'Let what you bind be bound, and what you loose be loosed'? And didn't Peter and the other Apostles, given this and other privileges, create a hierarchical Church and establish the Apostalic Succession? And who chose the books of the Bible that Protestants take as the only guiding light in their religion? Why don't Protestants add other books into the Bible that the much-maligned Catholic Church deemed not to be Sacred Scripture? Was there not a single other document that Protestants could be reconciled with but not Catholics, perhaps regarding differing opinions on the Trinity. And what if Thomas had written a very moving, beautiful letter through Divine Inspiration outlining the Church's doctrine on the Divine Mother? Would you accept that? If the Church's Catechism directly contradicted the Scriptures, there might be issues. However, the Catechism and the Bible are extraordinarily well reconciled--nearly two thousand years of scholastic endeavor have assured that. Indeed, Catholicism is probably the most self-consistent Christian religion. Nevertheless, the original question asks about most true to the 'central teachings' of Christianity. Well, if you take those teachings to be Christ's or Peter's, then Catholicism probably stands near the top. If you take Paul to be the spokeman for 'central teachings' then some other denominations become more competitive. However, I don't think that many of Christ's teachings would be well received on a Conservapedia.

::The thing is that Catholic mass has become a empty ritual. Christ didn't ask for religion, he asked for a intimate relationship. How are you supposed to have a relationship with the Christ when you go around praying to humans. God is the only one anyone should pray too. Not a human who died. Jesus died and came back and is alive. That's the main reason why the Catholics are not close at all. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]
==None==
If you are following people who require you to follow their teachings in order for your salvation, it's a good bet that you no longer adhere to the original disciples of the Son of God. Read the Bible and study it. It is spiritual manna. No human that places their teachings between you and the bible should be trusted before it. I only benefit from those that only teach the Bible without inserting their own liberal interpretations. Just about all that I know of have denominated their own words in addition to His word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is it OK with you if they insert their own conservative interpretations? Reading the Bible is going to demand interpretations, some trivial, some of much more serious import. Even the selection of a specific version demands a selection of interpretations. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You should be able to go back to the original Hebrew text. Get a Concordance and get a good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational. Study history, language, anthropology, etc. Biblical truths don't change because of different translations. The only interpretation you should be looking for is the original one when it was written. Looking for the truth wasn't meant to be easy, was it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the NT, it would be the original Greek or Aramaic, and AFAIK, these are not available. There is a whole field of study devoted to trying to figure out what the original text said. Much is known, but much is still conjecture. A "good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational" is simply choosing one that matches your own preconceptions. In the end, any reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and the vast majority of people do not have the ability or the time to find the most original texts, learn a couple ancient languages, then create their own interpretation.

:::By definition, any translation changes from the original, so anyone's translation becomes an interpretation. The vast majority of people have little choice but to select a denomination that most closely matches their own preconceptions. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 10:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

When choosing to denominate yourself to someone elses you have accepted their interpretation. You accept their conjecture. You will be required to accept the extra traits they have added to original scripture. Be wary of following others interpretations. Seek the truth from the original writer. Reject the preconceptions of people that have prejudiced themselves with their own traditions. There is only one Christian Church. Do not let others divide you amongst each other. This is the divide to weaken tact used to keep Christians in easily controllable groups. Don't fall for that trap. You belong to the Son of God and not any man-made denomination.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not a simple question ==
I submit that the only true and central teachings of Christianity are what came directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. After that, the moment the very first organized denomination established itself, there came into existence points of divergence, by the sheer fundemental nature of such a concept of a denomination. If different denominations all practiced and preached nothing but the central teachings of their shared faith, there would in effect be no actual denominations at all. As we all know, this is not so.
[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:What is the Sabbath day?

2007-06-23T18:04:58Z

InHisImage:

{{debate}}

This is a topic that interests me. I identify as a Seventh-Day Adventist, although I only hold loosely to some of the teachings of the church. I personally believe the Sabbath day to be Saturday, the 7th day of the week in the traditional calendar, and the day of the Jewish Sabbath. I was a bit surprised to find that Conservapedia's article on the [[Sabbath]] asserted that the "date given by Moses has been lost". (I'd correct that, but I'm a bit wary about introducing my own biases, which may not be quite what the project wants.) In either case, I figured this was a good topic for debate. What day is the Sabbath day, or does it even matter in the life of the Christian? --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." In the biblical sense, Sabbath has much more meaning than just a day of the week. There were also 7 year sabbaths and 50 year sabbaths. I'm no expert at this, but I believe these were also referred to as the Year of Jubilee. Christians meet on Sunday (first day of the week) because that is the day they believe that Christ rose from the grave. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sabbath day is from Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown, local time. The Jews are quite meticulous about ensuring their law is transmitted from one generation to the next without error, and one law commands the sabbath to be remembered. As far as Christians are concerned, Paul said, (Col.2:16) "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The Sabbath Day depends on what calander you're using--solar or lunar. Our comprehension of what day is which is thrown off by the fact that we have an extra day every 4 years to keep the calender sensical, which might also affect the Sabbath. It seems to be more important to observe rest and the power of God every seven days than to quibble about which of the seven it is. I seriously doubt God is going to scold you for not being a historical mathmatician and damning you for observing on the wrong day.

Really the Sabbath Day is any day that the Lord has deemed as Holy. The original holy day was the day that God rested. Jews believe this to be Saturday while Christians like to think of it as Sunday. It could be either it's more likely to be Saturday since the Christian calender has been altered so many times over the centries.[[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

We should note that none of the calendar changes over the centuries has ever altered the weekly cycle.[[User:djconklin|djconklin]] 8:04, 11 May 2007(CST)

I agree with the above--that the Sabbath was initially instituted as the seventh day of the week as recorded in the Old Testament, and that it was Saturday. Now whether it remains to be Saturday or has been changed to Sunday is up for debate. It is also up for debate whether the Sabbath should still be kept. First of all, I think that it is more important to keep the spirit of the law over the letter; in other words, I think that it is more important to demonstrate love to all people than to keep all the laws. If one keeps all the laws, they keep them for themselves in a sense--either demonstrating, or attesting thier righteousness. Unless ofcourse it is the laws that pertain to the gracious treatment of others such as ''loving thy neighbor, not commiting adultery, not stealing, nor lying, nor falsely testifying''. In other words, ''"treating others the way that you would like them to treat you"'' These are all good commands to keep. However, I believe that it is impossible to attain a righteousness without love which would properly prepare one for heaven. This is attested in 1 Corinthians when the Apostle Paul basically says that one could perform all kinds of various acts of ''love and kindness'' to others that would be basically useless or worthless if not done in ''the spirit of love''. Now concerning the fourth commandment--the Sabbath. It began as historical day of rest and as a commandment from God or Yahweh to Moses--the Leader of the Israelites around 1500 BC, to be observed by everybody. I believe that "This day was affirmed in the New Testament while Jesus was in the Earth after his crucifixion, "[the disciples] rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23.56). The fact that the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament in the context of Jesus' death and resurrection not only affirms the Sabbath as still being efficacious for believers, but it also affirms the day as the Seventh since it says "according to the commandment", namely the fourth commandment-- "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exod. 20.11. Now concerning my own thoughts, I think that it is good to keep the Sabbath for several reasons. First of all, it is good to keep it because of the commandment, so it must be good. Secondly, I think that our bodies, minds, and spirits need to have a break every week from the stresses and strains that we go through. We need time to heal and to rebuild. More later. Feel free to respond. [Petrarcah]--[[User:Petrarcah|Petrarcah]] 13:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

My view is that Christians have leeway to do whatever they want on the Sabbath. Colossians 2:16-17 says: Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Paul isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in Col. 2:16-17. The passage refers to outsiders (''i.e.'', non-Christians) judging the believers for their eating and drinking on (''en merei'') the feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths. For more details see http://www.666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html. [[User:djconklin|djconklin]] 8:04, 11 May 2007 (CST)

As djconklin states the reference in Col 2:16 is to ceremonial sabbaths that were celebrated according to the handwritten law of Moses as told to him by God as a symbol of future events. I'm amazed so many misquote this, having apparently not read the verse in it's context to the rest of the chapter. All through the Bible we are exhorted to keep the 7th day holy since creation. Calendar changes are another red herring; there has always been 7 days in a week since creation. I would assume that God would see that something so important would remain intact. Jesus kept the Sabnbath on the seventh day of the week. If His dying had any effect on the Moral Law wouldn't He have mentioned it? Celebrating Sunday as the day of rest because of His resurrection doesn't fit either. Baptism was given to us as a symbol of his death, burial, and resurrection. The Roman Catholic church claims the authority to change times and laws by sanctifying Sunday. It has no Biblical authority, nor from God either, to change a command spoken by God, written with His own finger and shouted from the mountaintop at Sinai.The Bible warns what will happen to those who teach as doctrine the traditions of men as well. It behooves us to obey the Word and keep the seventh day Sabbath.--InHIsImage

Debate:What is the Sabbath day?

2007-06-23T18:04:16Z

InHisImage: