Raf had pointed out Jesus is present and not present. Why is something like that a contradiction or discrepancy? Why is one inclined to explain it?
Is it because random writings are cobbled together? Or that each story is focused on a different aspect of reality?
I think generally paradoxes, mysteries, the unexplainable and such fascinate many folks. my 2-bit philosophy thinks that besides giving one a sense of meaning, another attraction of religion is it attempts to explain the unexplainable.
I think generally paradoxes, mysteries, the unexplainable and such fascinate many folks. my 2-bit philosophy thinks that besides giving one a sense of meaning, another attraction of religion is it attempts to explain the unexplainable.
Hmmm. Maybe I don't understand religion that way . . . isn't it a reflection of the people involved? A reflection/projection of psychology? . . . an observation
Shouldn't a person "know thyself"?
Is attempting to understand yourself and the people around you explaining the unexplainable?
christ absent / not absent - this is about people?
Ive stated copious time where Im coming from, and I don't think our disagreement is stark. As I stated earlier, a physically, flesh and blood, sandal and tunic wearing Jesus is not here, so fair enough. Scripture teaches he was changed, ascended, and is present in his Lordship, directing the affairs of his Church. According to scripture, that long laundry list I did in Acts for example, shows copious direct interaction. Given you are at a place where you don't believe scripture, I wouldnt expect you to believe those accounts either, and thats not an issues with me. Its a doctrinal point we disagree on , though we aren't too far an accord. I no longer feel the need to rush in and make an issue out of how anyone feels regarding scripture. Personally, I feel that we are on the path we are walking and that path may be completely different from the path other's are on. In my own life, I had about an 8 year run where I didnt believe much else besides happy hour started at 4 at my favorite bar. Im a much happier person now that I can actually do what the way international forbids, and in large part what I think mike struggles with the most, and that is accept people's positions and beliefs that are different from mine and still treat them with love and respect! Rock on Raf!
Let me agree, again, the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does. Jesus IS present in his lordship, directing the affairs of the church in Acts. But what about NOW? He's directing the affairs of church A and of church B, which go to war over belly buttons (not really, but the real disputes are just as substantive). When two churches, both directed by the lordship of the present Christ, disagree on a point of doctrine, who settles it? Church C? Church C doesn't believe in belly buttons.
It's only the Word that can resolve disputes, Biblically. "Try the spirits," the Bible says. How? Against what standard? Your gut? What if your gut disagrees with another believer's gut? Listen for the still small voice? But they don't agree with each other.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is the only way to resolve disagreements about the will of God.
Let me agree, again, the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does. Jesus IS present in his lordship, directing the affairs of the church in Acts. But what about NOW? He's directing the affairs of church A and of church B, which go to war over belly buttons (not really, but the real disputes are just as substantive). When two churches, both directed by the lordship of the present Christ, disagree on a point of doctrine, who settles it? Church C? Church C doesn't believe in belly buttons.
It's only the Word that can resolve disputes, Biblically. "Try the spirits," the Bible says. How? Against what standard? Your gut? What if your gut disagrees with another believer's gut? Listen for the still small voice? But they don't agree with each other.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is the only way to resolve disagreements about the will of God.
Isn't it?
Church A: The body was made in God's image. Let's use science to make medicine and build a hospital for everyone. Alleviate suffering and such.
Church B: The body is wicked and evil and poorly designed. Bunch of empties floating by. Halve the population to prevent starvation.
Church C: I don't believe in the body.
Yeah I don't know. This more than trivial.
Why does the word only resolve disputes? Why should everything agree? Isn't that utopian thinking? Nothing in the Bible states "build utopia".
Let me agree, again, the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does. Jesus IS present in his lordship, directing the affairs of the church in Acts. But what about NOW? He's directing the affairs of church A and of church B, which go to war over belly buttons (not really, but the real disputes are just as substantive). When two churches, both directed by the lordship of the present Christ, disagree on a point of doctrine, who settles it? Church C? Church C doesn't believe in belly buttons.
It's only the Word that can resolve disputes, Biblically. "Try the spirits," the Bible says. How? Against what standard? Your gut? What if your gut disagrees with another believer's gut? Listen for the still small voice? But they don't agree with each other.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is the only way to resolve disagreements about the will of God.
Isn't it?
But Churches A, B and C all disagree on what the Bible says, partly because the Bible disagrees with itself on certain issues, partly because of differing interpretations.
Let me agree, again, the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does. Jesus IS present in his lordship, directing the affairs of the church in Acts. But what about NOW? He's directing the affairs of church A and of church B, which go to war over belly buttons (not really, but the real disputes are just as substantive). When two churches, both directed by the lordship of the present Christ, disagree on a point of doctrine, who settles it? Church C? Church C doesn't believe in belly buttons.
It's only the Word that can resolve disputes, Biblically. "Try the spirits," the Bible says. How? Against what standard? Your gut? What if your gut disagrees with another believer's gut? Listen for the still small voice? But they don't agree with each other.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is the only way to resolve disagreements about the will of God.
Isn't it?
In my opinion, that’s absolute thinking to suppose Jesus Christ is directing the affairs of the church in a totalitarian manner.
Factions warring over differences in whether or not Adam & Eve had belly buttons was one of wierwille’s arguments / reasons for accepting hismethod of interpreting “The Word” – and there was a method to his madness - in my opinion there was a diabolical purpose to the Scripture twisting, double-talk, and logical fallacies – that’s what made him a pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult-leader. wierwille had this whole caricature of the church in chaos to present himself as the one to restore the law and order of “The Word”.
laying aside pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cults, in general I believe fundamentalists do tend to be narrower minded than evangelicals when it comes to debates over interpreting Scripture. Is scholarly debate really such a bad thing? I don’t think so. There’s an instance of someone who was driving out demons but wasn’t in Jesus’ group:
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”Luke 9:49, 50
what's interesting - the instance wasn't about a difference in interpreting the Scriptures. This person was doing good in Jesus' name. What's noteworthy is Jesus' reaction to his disciple's complaint.
To be clear, I use the belly buttons as a tongue in cheek example of the things over which Christians disagree. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that no matter what issue you choose, there are Christians on both sides of it. Baptism, the Trinity, immediate life after death, the reality of hell, the shape of the Earth, the necessity of works, the permanence of salvation, the need to keep kosher, military service and the pledge of allegiance, drinking, smoking, marriage, divorce, the sabbath... name the issue, serious or petty, and there are Christians who have killed each other over it.
What resolves disagreements when two followers of Christ, each claiming to walk by the spirit, contradict each other on a matter of doctrine or practice? Someone has to be wrong! Who judges?
It has to be something outside the populace.
The Word?
Hypothetically, yeah. If it serves no other purpose shouldn't the Bible define Christianity?
I probably could have worded it a little better, but by Church I mean the body of Christ and more specifically people.
To address the potential issues you mention, I would have to say that conflict resolution within various organizations could be a multi-faceted affair. Meaning, not all Churches (as in actual organizations) follow scripture or are even meek to one another. Yes, scripture is pretty clear on how to handle conflict and disagreements in most places, so I would agree that the first stop anyone should make in seeking potnetial resolution would be scriipture.
Im more honed in on what the way international taught that we arent even to praise Jesus in any way, or pray to him, or to fellowship with him in any manner but God only. Obviously, scripture is clear and in direct opposition to TWI - as usualy...anywho. So in many ways my point is individuals having a relationship with Jesus Christ was forbidden by TWI and the book of Acts clearly shows interaction as recorded. So, I guess the obvious question becomes did Christ stop interacting with his Church? Does he still have the capacity to appear to people as happened to Saul on the road to Damascus?
More later, I wanna think things through a little too. Thanks for responging and also thanks for it being a thoughtful response.
To be clear, I use the belly buttons as a tongue in cheek example of the things over which Christians disagree. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that no matter what issue you choose, there are Christians on both sides of it. Baptism, the Trinity, immediate life after death, the reality of hell, the shape of the Earth, the necessity of works, the permanence of salvation, the need to keep kosher, military service and the pledge of allegiance, drinking, smoking, marriage, divorce, the sabbath... name the issue, serious or petty, and there are Christians who have killed each other over it.
What resolves disagreements when two followers of Christ, each claiming to walk by the spirit, contradict each other on a matter of doctrine or practice? Someone has to be wrong! Who judges?
It has to be something outside the populace.
The Word?
Hypothetically, yeah. If it serves no other purpose shouldn't the Bible define Christianity?
Etc
Okay – I see your point – and I have no definitive answers to your questions…though I will say from what I gather mentioned in the New Testament docs, it seems to me that the ‘governing system’ of the church has overseers - managers…those who shepherd God’s flock, who are expected to work under the Chief Shepherd – holding to the message of Jesus Christ. Yeah, it’s far from perfect – but that’s the arrangement we have for now...I assume that's the idea behind seminaries.
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. Titus 1
5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. I Peter 5
Okay – I see your point – and I have no definitive answers to your questions…though I will say from what I gather mentioned in the New Testament docs, it seems to me that the ‘governing system’ of the church has overseers - managers…those who shepherd God’s flock, who are expected to work under the Chief Shepherd – holding to the message of Jesus Christ. Yeah, it’s far from perfect – but that’s the arrangement we have for now...I assume that's the idea behind seminaries.
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. Titus 1
5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. I Peter 5
Yes, but then there's the fact that not every Church will actually use scripture in conflict resolution. Then there's the mega Churches based on property and word of faith preachers...but any illustration has its limitations. Raf raised some good points.
Yes, but then there's the fact that not every Church will actually use scripture in conflict resolution. Then there's the mega Churches based on property and word of faith preachers...but any illustration has its limitations. Raf raised some good points.
Are suggesting The Bible should be used for conflict resolution?
How would someone use The Bible to resolve conflict?
To be clear, I use the belly buttons as a tongue in cheek example of the things over which Christians disagree. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that no matter what issue you choose, there are Christians on both sides of it. Baptism, the Trinity, immediate life after death, the reality of hell, the shape of the Earth, the necessity of works, the permanence of salvation, the need to keep kosher, military service and the pledge of allegiance, drinking, smoking, marriage, divorce, the sabbath... name the issue, serious or petty, and there are Christians who have killed each other over it.
What resolves disagreements when two followers of Christ, each claiming to walk by the spirit, contradict each other on a matter of doctrine or practice? Someone has to be wrong! Who judges?
It has to be something outside the populace.
The Word?
Hypothetically, yeah. If it serves no other purpose shouldn't the Bible define Christianity?
Etc
*someone has to be wrong*
When kids run into each other at the playground nobody asks to verify religions. No judges.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
Bolshevik
Ring around the rosie . . . we all fall down (because we died of the plague)
Children's stories and nursery rhymes are all dark. Everything is dark. The world is Dark.
. . . Back to Children's Fellowship . . . . We're Standing on the W-O-R-D . . clap your hands . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think generally paradoxes, mysteries, the unexplainable and such fascinate many folks. my 2-bit philosophy thinks that besides giving one a sense of meaning, another attraction of religion is it attempts to explain the unexplainable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ahhhh! Little Bunny Foo Foo. What a rascal he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hmmm. Maybe I don't understand religion that way . . . isn't it a reflection of the people involved? A reflection/projection of psychology? . . . an observation
Shouldn't a person "know thyself"?
Is attempting to understand yourself and the people around you explaining the unexplainable?
christ absent / not absent - this is about people?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
scooping up the field mice and popping them on the head!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let me agree, again, the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does. Jesus IS present in his lordship, directing the affairs of the church in Acts. But what about NOW? He's directing the affairs of church A and of church B, which go to war over belly buttons (not really, but the real disputes are just as substantive). When two churches, both directed by the lordship of the present Christ, disagree on a point of doctrine, who settles it? Church C? Church C doesn't believe in belly buttons.
It's only the Word that can resolve disputes, Biblically. "Try the spirits," the Bible says. How? Against what standard? Your gut? What if your gut disagrees with another believer's gut? Listen for the still small voice? But they don't agree with each other.
"The Word takes the place of the absent Christ" is the only way to resolve disagreements about the will of God.
Isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Church A: The body was made in God's image. Let's use science to make medicine and build a hospital for everyone. Alleviate suffering and such.
Church B: The body is wicked and evil and poorly designed. Bunch of empties floating by. Halve the population to prevent starvation.
Church C: I don't believe in the body.
Yeah I don't know. This more than trivial.
Why does the word only resolve disputes? Why should everything agree? Isn't that utopian thinking? Nothing in the Bible states "build utopia".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When I google "The word of god is the will of god"
that comes from one source.
it ain't the bible to my knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
But Churches A, B and C all disagree on what the Bible says, partly because the Bible disagrees with itself on certain issues, partly because of differing interpretations.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There is that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In my opinion, that’s absolute thinking to suppose Jesus Christ is directing the affairs of the church in a totalitarian manner.
Factions warring over differences in whether or not Adam & Eve had belly buttons was one of wierwille’s arguments / reasons for accepting his method of interpreting “The Word” – and there was a method to his madness - in my opinion there was a diabolical purpose to the Scripture twisting, double-talk, and logical fallacies – that’s what made him a pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult-leader. wierwille had this whole caricature of the church in chaos to present himself as the one to restore the law and order of “The Word”.
laying aside pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cults, in general I believe fundamentalists do tend to be narrower minded than evangelicals when it comes to debates over interpreting Scripture. Is scholarly debate really such a bad thing? I don’t think so. There’s an instance of someone who was driving out demons but wasn’t in Jesus’ group:
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9:49, 50
what's interesting - the instance wasn't about a difference in interpreting the Scriptures. This person was doing good in Jesus' name. What's noteworthy is Jesus' reaction to his disciple's complaint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
To be clear, I use the belly buttons as a tongue in cheek example of the things over which Christians disagree. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that no matter what issue you choose, there are Christians on both sides of it. Baptism, the Trinity, immediate life after death, the reality of hell, the shape of the Earth, the necessity of works, the permanence of salvation, the need to keep kosher, military service and the pledge of allegiance, drinking, smoking, marriage, divorce, the sabbath... name the issue, serious or petty, and there are Christians who have killed each other over it.
What resolves disagreements when two followers of Christ, each claiming to walk by the spirit, contradict each other on a matter of doctrine or practice? Someone has to be wrong! Who judges?
It has to be something outside the populace.
The Word?
Hypothetically, yeah. If it serves no other purpose shouldn't the Bible define Christianity?
Etc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I probably could have worded it a little better, but by Church I mean the body of Christ and more specifically people.
To address the potential issues you mention, I would have to say that conflict resolution within various organizations could be a multi-faceted affair. Meaning, not all Churches (as in actual organizations) follow scripture or are even meek to one another. Yes, scripture is pretty clear on how to handle conflict and disagreements in most places, so I would agree that the first stop anyone should make in seeking potnetial resolution would be scriipture.
Im more honed in on what the way international taught that we arent even to praise Jesus in any way, or pray to him, or to fellowship with him in any manner but God only. Obviously, scripture is clear and in direct opposition to TWI - as usualy...anywho. So in many ways my point is individuals having a relationship with Jesus Christ was forbidden by TWI and the book of Acts clearly shows interaction as recorded. So, I guess the obvious question becomes did Christ stop interacting with his Church? Does he still have the capacity to appear to people as happened to Saul on the road to Damascus?
More later, I wanna think things through a little too. Thanks for responging and also thanks for it being a thoughtful response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Okay – I see your point – and I have no definitive answers to your questions…though I will say from what I gather mentioned in the New Testament docs, it seems to me that the ‘governing system’ of the church has overseers - managers…those who shepherd God’s flock, who are expected to work under the Chief Shepherd – holding to the message of Jesus Christ. Yeah, it’s far from perfect – but that’s the arrangement we have for now...I assume that's the idea behind seminaries.
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. Titus 1
5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. I Peter 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes, but then there's the fact that not every Church will actually use scripture in conflict resolution. Then there's the mega Churches based on property and word of faith preachers...but any illustration has its limitations. Raf raised some good points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Are suggesting The Bible should be used for conflict resolution?
How would someone use The Bible to resolve conflict?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
There's plenty examples of conflict...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So and so ran over my cat
Do I beat them over the head with a King James?
I think a Strongs concordance would do more damage?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Now that would be a literal according to usage....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*someone has to be wrong*
When kids run into each other at the playground nobody asks to verify religions. No judges.
*the Bible defines Christianity*
What?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No Bibles here. . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Who killed your cat?
If you hadn’t been so full of fear, your cat would still be alive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I just feel conflicted inside. How can the Bible sort me out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.