My point still stands that there is disagreement in the scripture among denominations. I have friends who grew up in strict teetotaler households because the scripture to their parents said do not drink. My United Methodist household had no problems with a few bourbons amongst friends and family. Scripture said to my church community don't do stupid things with alcohol. Jesus turned water into wine.
Creeds?
Free Will vs Predestination?
Good work vs faith alone?
Plenty of disagreements.

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

My point still stands that there is disagreement in the scripture among denominations. I have friends who grew up in strict teetotaler households because the scripture to their parents said do not drink. My United Methodist household had no problems with a few bourbons amongst friends and family. Scripture said to my church community don't do stupid things with alcohol. Jesus turned water into wine.
Creeds?
Free Will vs Predestination?
Good work vs faith alone?
Plenty of disagreements.

---

Are you capable of reading the objective, written word of Scripture for yourself? Or are you going to depend on what a denominational position is?

You and I will not be measured by whether we adhered to a denominational teaching or tradition. You and I will be measured against the written word in the Bible. And that is the same place you go to see if a preacher or teacher is speaking heresy.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Who is to say he is wrong?

---

Well, a good indicator that he is wrong, is when you open up the bible, and the very first line says "God created the heavens and the earth", but he believes that God did NOT create the heavens or the earth, or even man.

Another good indicator is when the central claim of the Gospels and all of Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but he believes that there was no bodily resurrection of Jesus.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

But going back to your question "who is to say he is wrong?" - yes, there are differences in interpretation, but does that mean there are no wrong interpretations? Are all interpretations valid, no matter how radical or even nonsensical? Is there no measure of discernment we can use to judge?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

But going back to your question "who is to say he is wrong?" - yes, there are differences in interpretation, but does that mean there are no wrong interpretations? Are all interpretations valid, no matter how radical or even nonsensical? Is there no measure of discernment we can use to judge?

---

David Koresh had an interpretation

Osodecentx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

But going back to your question "who is to say he is wrong?" - yes, there are differences in interpretation, but does that mean there are no wrong interpretations? Are all interpretations valid, no matter how radical or even nonsensical? Is there no measure of discernment we can use to judge?

---

David Koresh had an interpretation

---

And it did not square with the objective, written word of Scripture. Therefore, heresy.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

How many of those debates are really about essentials?

Oldbear83 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

How many of those debates are really about essentials?

---

robes and carpet color are big stumbling blocks

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

But going back to your question "who is to say he is wrong?" - yes, there are differences in interpretation, but does that mean there are no wrong interpretations? Are all interpretations valid, no matter how radical or even nonsensical? Is there no measure of discernment we can use to judge?

---

David Koresh had an interpretation

---

And it did not square with the objective, written word of Scripture. Therefore, heresy.

---

Exactly

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

All major Christian denominations agree on who Jesus is, no doubt there, but as to the literalness of interpretation line by line of the Bible? Definitely plenty of debates there, hence all the denominations and Bible translations.

---

But going back to your question "who is to say he is wrong?" - yes, there are differences in interpretation, but does that mean there are no wrong interpretations? Are all interpretations valid, no matter how radical or even nonsensical? Is there no measure of discernment we can use to judge?

---

David Koresh had an interpretation

---

And it did not square with the objective, written word of Scripture. Therefore, heresy.

---

Exactly

---

And blasphemy.

1. Church is NOT Christianity...it's a building of people attendance is not required by God
2. AS we allow more immigrants in, Christianity will give way to other faiths...not shocking.
3. We do not require assimilation as other countries do, so again, this is not shocking.

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

fadskier said:

---

1. Church is NOT Christianity...it's a building of people attendance is not required by God
2. AS we allow more immigrants in, Christianity will give way to other faiths...not shocking.
3. We do not require assimilation as other countries do, so again, this is not shocking.

---

Gathering together in communal worship to honor God is of course a commandment of Christianity.

[There is a command to not neglect gathering together, "And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24)

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God …Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-10a, 11b)]

And of course the Church building itself is not that important...but the Church is something very much spiritual and very important.

[The visible and local church is, of course, the physical churches that we see around us and around the world, as well as the members of those churches. The invisible and universal church, however, refers to all believers everywhere and is one church, united in Christ. The church is not a building, but a body of believers with a specific nature and purpose]

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

1. Church is NOT Christianity...it's a building of people attendance is not required by God
2. AS we allow more immigrants in, Christianity will give way to other faiths...not shocking.
3. We do not require assimilation as other countries do, so again, this is not shocking.

---

Gathering together in communal worship to honor God is of course a commandment of Christianity.

[There is a command to not neglect gathering together, "And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24)

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God …Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-10a, 11b)]

And of course the Church building itself is not that important...but the Church is something very much spiritual and very important.

[The visible and local church is, of course, the physical churches that we see around us and around the world, as well as the members of those churches. The invisible and universal church, however, refers to all believers everywhere and is one church, united in Christ. The church is not a building, but a body of believers with a specific nature and purpose]

---

Gathering together and attending church is not the same thing. Gathering can be done in small groups. Keeping the Sabbath can be done without church attendance. For the record, I attend church regularly because I choose to. I am not required to.

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

1. Church is NOT Christianity...it's a building of people attendance is not required by God
2. AS we allow more immigrants in, Christianity will give way to other faiths...not shocking.
3. We do not require assimilation as other countries do, so again, this is not shocking.

---

Gathering together in communal worship to honor God is of course a commandment of Christianity.

[There is a command to not neglect gathering together, "And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24)

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God …Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-10a, 11b)]

And of course the Church building itself is not that important...but the Church is something very much spiritual and very important.

[The visible and local church is, of course, the physical churches that we see around us and around the world, as well as the members of those churches. The invisible and universal church, however, refers to all believers everywhere and is one church, united in Christ. The church is not a building, but a body of believers with a specific nature and purpose]

---

Gathering together and attending church is not the same thing. Gathering can be done in small groups. Keeping the Sabbath can be done without church attendance. For the record, I attend church regularly because I choose to. I am not required to.

---

Probably depends if you are Protestant or Catholic/Eastern Orthodox.

"Catholics have a duty to participate at Mass on Sundays and on certain other Holy Days, except when prevented by a legitimate reason."

The Orthodox also make weekly Divine Liturgy (holy eucharist) attendance a requirement.

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

Always funny to me when people who disagree with the central tenets of the faith, as expressed in scripture, try to describe such disagree as a mere interpretation issue.

I am curious, are there any central tenets that one could disagree with in still call themselves Christian, in your book?

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

Always funny to me when people who disagree with the central tenets of the faith, as expressed in scripture, try to describe such disagree as a mere interpretation issue.

I am curious, are there any central tenets that one could disagree with in still call themselves Christian, in your book?

---

As to your comment "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that the other is automatically wrong whenever I am contradicted."

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

---

You moved the goalposts. Obedience is absolutely required of a disciple but interpretation is another matter.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

Always funny to me when people who disagree with the central tenets of the faith, as expressed in scripture, try to describe such disagree as a mere interpretation issue.

I am curious, are there any central tenets that one could disagree with in still call themselves Christian, in your book?

---

As to your comment "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that the other is automatically wrong whenever I am contradicted."

---

So I take that as a "no"?

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

---

You moved the goalposts. Obedience is absolutely required of a disciple but interpretation is another matter.

---

No one moved the goalposts.

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

---

You moved the goalposts. Obedience is absolutely required of a disciple but interpretation is another matter.

---

No one moved the goalposts.

---

Yes it a matter of interpretation

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

---

You moved the goalposts. Obedience is absolutely required of a disciple but interpretation is another matter.

---

No one moved the goalposts.

---

Yes it a matter of interpretation

---

Nope.

God said it.

You defied it.

That's the problem.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I recognize and hold to the authority of scripture, but I do not agree to your interpretation.

---

It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether you obey or not.

---

You moved the goalposts. Obedience is absolutely required of a disciple but interpretation is another matter.

---

No one moved the goalposts.

---

Yes it a matter of interpretation

---

Nope.

God said it.

You defied it.

That's the problem.

---

Followers ask, "what does it say?"

Rebels ask, "Is that really what it says?"

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

always try
sometimes fail

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

I did it the last time I posted here.

Titus and Titus said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The decline actually began back in the 1960s-1970s but then stabilized for several decades.

Then began to decline again post turn of the century.

Picking up even more speed around the introduction of the I-Phone

---

Interesting. 1970 looks like an important year.

---

My experience is that the immigrants we see in Florida are very religious, much more than the US citizens. There is a reason they believe the future of the Church is in Central and South America. I have not seen immigrants as a problem in terms of being religious.

Now, something to look into is where they worship. The immigrants create there own areas, they do not join our Church. They worship together, segregated. Not because they have to, they want to. So, as the US church attendence declined, we do not get the immigrants filling the gap. They stay to themselves. Just my observation.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

I did it the last time I posted here.

---

Nope. If you think that was 'humble', wow.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

Always turning the conversation to name-calling.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

I did it the last time I posted here.

---

Nope. If you think that was 'humble', wow.

---

Not THAT post. Obviously.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

Always turning the conversation to name-calling.

---

You might want to pay closer attention, Waco. That's not 'name-calling', it's calling out.

Check the Book of Jeremiah for more details, if you are still confused. Chapter 5, verse 25 in particular.

Also, 1 Kings 22:18 comes to mind.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Calling you a heretic isn't demeaning or attacking. It simply means you don't hold orthodox beliefs. I do give you credit for being more civil than most of your opponents her

---

Thank you I try to be civil.
A heretical charge is a meaningless charge. By what authority does level the charge against me. It is sloppy thinking. I do stand outside orthodox beliefs but not heretical. I stand within a tradition at 150 years old. Superstition is dying and the schools I advocate want to see the survival of faith (not dogma.)

---

The point isn't whether you think you are a heretic. The point is that heresy is the standard charge lobbed when you disagree on theology. Argue the theology, not the label. It's trollbait, ignore it.

---

or, self-examine after the charge first and then, argue the theology.

---

You should try that.

---

We all should be actually. Yet I never see that kind of humility from you quash, nor Sam. It's as if taking someone else's point seriously is a threat to your ego.

---

Always turning the conversation to name-calling.

---

You might want to pay closer attention, Waco. That's not 'name-calling', it's calling out.

Check the Book of Jeremiah for more details, if you are still confused. Chapter 5, verse 25 in particular.

Also, 1 Kings 22:18 comes to mind.

---

And along comes Jesus "Love one another"