Which Christianity is the real thing?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Isn't this the equivalent of asking which is the 'right' descendant of my gt-gt-grandfather? I am, naturally, in my own view, if he was worth identifying with, but none of us ARE that largely-imagined figure. What you can do, I think, is look at the earliest texts and compare with current behaviour: unless you believe in constant divine intervention the 'tradition' argument implied in the apostolic succession seems untenable.

it is if you are talking about which of the grandchildren is supposed to inherit a company. besides, the grandchildren's existences arent all dependent on mutually exclusive claims.

and we dont have the earliest texts. the best we have so far, at least for the new testament, is somewhere around 300 years after the first books were supposedly written, around 450CE. and those texts were likely the subject of manipulation before that, given the early church's condoning lying and deceit for god.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I'm implying that, according to the doctrine, one is virtuous and good BECAUSE they have Jesus in their life.

I understand that, and its horseshit. atheists help people, and not because a god wants them to. the motivation matters to me.

[kjw47]

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. However that being said if I came to believe in the Christian God I would have no idea--and no way to find out with any certainty--which Christian religion is the true religion. Some Christian denominations preach that failure to believe in their dogma would bar me from heaven, and damn me to hell or its equivalent.

So, I wonder, how does any Christian know with any certainty that they are on the right path to salvation? It seems to me no Christian can be even reasonably sure that, despite their belief in God and Jesus, that they can be assured of anything after death like everlasting life, given the enormous disagreement between Christians. If Christians can't agree on how to be a Christian and honor, worship, and serve God, how is a converted atheist supposed to choose (and choose one must some Christian denominations claim) which is the correct path?

How, I wonder, can any Christian be believed? How can one know who is right and who is wrong?

It seems to me that every Christian, no matter how true their faith, is condemned to their own insoluble Pascal's Wager. They cannot know the true faith. How awful, it seems to me, to know that despite a belief in God and Jesus and faithfully serving them both that a Christian can still suffer internal damnation for merely failing to choose the right Christian religion.

By listening to Jesus words one can find his religion--Jesus said--they would be no part of this world( what would that entail since all humans must live in this world???) no participation in the corrupt politics( voting,running for office) no participation in the wars of hatred-- no participation in the pagan filled or nationalistic holidays-- No participation in gross sins the world embraces- 1 corinthians 6:9-11, galations 5) Also Jesus taught this clue-- Keep on seeking first the kingdom and his( Jehovah) righteousness, and all will be added.

[Jack]

For Christians, the only real religion is the one they happen to belong to. Whether by choice or inheritance, the belief system they embrace is the only real one.

[Dan74]

Why there are even separate churches within Christianity boggles my mind.

[minorwork]

Why there are even separate churches within Christianity boggles my mind.

Certainly God's house has many rooms, many heavens. Who would want to be holed up in that creepy Ted Haggard's heaven? Kent Hovind's? My ex's?

[The Theist]

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. However that being said if I came to believe in the Christian God I would have no idea--and no way to find out with any certainty--which Christian religion is the true religion. Some Christian denominations preach that failure to believe in their dogma would bar me from heaven, and damn me to hell or its equivalent.

So, I wonder, how does any Christian know with any certainty that they are on the right path to salvation? It seems to me no Christian can be even reasonably sure that, despite their belief in God and Jesus, that they can be assured of anything after death like everlasting life, given the enormous disagreement between Christians. If Christians can't agree on how to be a Christian and honor, worship, and serve God, how is a converted atheist supposed to choose (and choose one must some Christian denominations claim) which is the correct path?

How, I wonder, can any Christian be believed? How can one know who is right and who is wrong?

It seems to me that every Christian, no matter how true their faith, is condemned to their own insoluble Pascal's Wager. They cannot know the true faith. How awful, it seems to me, to know that despite a belief in God and Jesus and faithfully serving them both that a Christian can still suffer internal damnation for merely failing to choose the right Christian religion.

Well, first of all I don't think that any Christian can be certain if their beliefs are true. They should take a "scientific" approach. During my nearly 20 years (from 1993) I have been proven wrong a few times and have changed accordingly. It isn't a test which you must pass on accurate knowledge. The Bible says that some may believe wrongly but their hearts are in the right place and that matters more. Jesus said it was the seeking of knowledge that leads to everlasting life, not necessarily the finding of it.

At the same time, if you believe in something which is as Paul said Myth or fables, simply because of your trust in the traditions of men that would amount to a lack of faith in God. Especially as knowledge grows. Today you can easily trace the pagan influence in modern day Christianity. The immortal soul, hell, trinity, cross, rapture, Easter, Christmas, for example.

It is most certainly arguable that one should be associated with a congregation of followers, but either the pagan influence, false prophecy or rigid showmanship of any of them leaves one wondering. It sure does me. I don't want to be a part of any of them.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are the closest thing to the truth, but they have a history of false prophecy, "end of the world" and rigid positions taken on such things as organ transplants, higher education, vaccinations, blood transfusions that have resulted in thousands of deaths. Then changed their minds in the name of God.

Remember, being a Christian isn't about putting on a show of righteousness, it is about acknowledging sin and the need of salvation.

[The Theist]

Certainly God's house has many rooms, many heavens. Who would want to be holed up in that creepy Ted Haggard's heaven? Kent Hovind's? My ex's?

Well . . . I don't know who Ted Haggard is, but doing some time with Kent Hovind and, lets say . . . Tammy Faye Baker . . . would be interesting at least temporarily. As long as I knew where the exit was.

[finder]

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. However that being said if I came to believe in the Christian God I would have no idea--and no way to find out with any certainty--which Christian religion is the true religion.

The search begins inside yourself. Question your motives for wanting to know and your search results will be contingent on your motives.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

The search begins inside yourself. Question your motives for wanting to know and your search results will be contingent on your motives.

so now its not only that you have to believe, but you must also say 'pretty please with sugar on top"?

fuck, your god is hard to get a response from. Do I also have to wear a pink tutu and spin around in circles?

Oh, wait, that might make the whole thing seem like the magic incantation that it really is.

[iolo]

it is if you are talking about which of the grandchildren is supposed to inherit a company. besides, the grandchildren's existences arent all dependent on mutually exclusive claims.

and we dont have the earliest texts. the best we have so far, at least for the new testament, is somewhere around 300 years after the first books were supposedly written, around 450CE. and those texts were likely the subject of manipulation before that, given the early church's condoning lying and deceit for god.

I hear what you say, but they are the earliest texts we have. And do you reckon they rewrote Paul's letters, for instance? It sounds too Machiavelian to me.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I hear what you say, but they are the earliest texts we have. And do you reckon they rewrote Paul's letters, for instance? It sounds too Machiavelian to me.

I dont know, and neither do you.

besides, the originals were still AT LEAST 40 years after the supposed events, if not longer. I dont know about you, but I have memories that I KNOW to be inaccurate, due to the inconsistencies shown by later seeing video of the same event. This same thing happens to everyone, whether or not they know it. And the inconsistencies that occur even within the bounds of what we refer to as eye-witness testimony can be suprisingly large.

You are starting with a fuzzy copy to begin with, and only have a 300-years-after-the-first-manuscript version of THAT. So, even if the copies of the copies of the translations of the copies of the fuzzy copy are even accurate to that fuzzy copy, that still says nothing about the accuracy of the actual accounts.