Here's an interesting and scary quote.

You didn't answer the question Cato. I'll ask it again.

Was Jesus dying on the cross for our sins unconditional atonement for our sins or not?

Aaron wrote:You didn't answer the question Cato. I'll ask it again.

Was Jesus dying on the cross for our sins unconditional atonement for our sins or not?

He died for all mankind, however, we have a part to do also, and that is obedient faith. Colossians 2:8 tells us that we are saved by grace, though faith. Grace is a gift, unmerited gift. We are saved when we obey the law of faith. When we hear the gosple, believe it, repent, confess jesus is the son of God, and are baptised for the remission of sins. We then have to live a faithful life in obedience to Jesus commands. That is we worship as he has prescribed, we live as he has commanded.

So you're saying that if we don't do our part, we can't get into Heaven, is that correct?

Aaron makes my case for me, Cato. You can talk all you like about how selective I what I believe to be anything approaching historically accurate. The TRUTH of the matter is men have decided which books to include or exclude for thousands of years and the debate continues.

I have no clue who the authors of these books were. The OT dates back to antiquity, handed down orally and hand written and translated numerous times over the course of thousands of years. The NT isn't as old, but the gospels were not written in Christ's lifetime. They weren't written in the months and years after his death. Nearly all were written and incorporated into the book you so revere by people who were not firsthand witnesses decades, even centuries after his death.

Don't like a book? Disagrees with the variety of Christianity you preach or follow? Toss it out. This has been done numerous times by various leaders and various groups and within a generation or two those books become some sort of fantasy or heresy and the people who continue to include them cease to be "real" Christians. After all, your group knows best.

Organized religion is, always has been, and always will be, a way to control people and access their wealth. These are the things that Christianity has in common with Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism.

So who's version of sacred text is correct? I don't particularly care because I think there is some truth in all of them. We should be kind to other people. We should take care of our elderly and raise our children to be respectful, productive citizens and children should mind loving parents because these things are good for us. We shouldn't copulate like dogs in heat or abuse our children or kill for the sake of killing. These things are bad for us.

Christians have not cornered the market on altruism or humanitarianism or any other virtue any more than they have the market cornered on the greed, murder, and rape. If thinking your loved ones who've passed on are flitting around heaven listening to the harps of angels and basking in the glow of god's love because they believe what you believe makes you feel good, more power to you. I'm not buying it.

Aaron wrote:So you're saying that if we don't do our part, we can't get into Heaven, is that correct?

That is correct!

Stephanie wrote:Aaron makes my case for me, Cato. You can talk all you like about how selective I what I believe to be anything approaching historically accurate. The TRUTH of the matter is men have decided which books to include or exclude for thousands of years and the debate continues.

And your 100% certain of that. You are 100% certain that God's providence played no role in the matter?

Stephanie wrote:I have no clue who the authors of these books were. The OT dates back to antiquity, handed down orally and hand written and translated numerous times over the course of thousands of years. The NT isn't as old, but the gospels were not written in Christ's lifetime. They weren't written in the months and years after his death. Nearly all were written and incorporated into the book you so revere by people who were not firsthand witnesses decades, even centuries after his death.

So you are saying that Peter, John, Matthew, we not first hand witnesses?

Stephanie wrote:Don't like a book? Disagrees with the variety of Christianity you preach or follow? Toss it out. This has been done numerous times by various leaders and various groups and within a generation or two those books become some sort of fantasy or heresy and the people who continue to include them cease to be "real" Christians. After all, your group knows best.

As I pointed out to Aaron if God's providence didn't play a role someone will have to explain to me why the catholic church didn't make changes to bring the bible in line with church tradition.

Stephanie wrote:Organized religion is, always has been, and always will be, a way to control people and access their wealth. These are the things that Christianity has in common with Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism.

And as I have asked does that make religion bad or those that use religion to control others bad? Your arguement is the same as the gun control people. If guns are taken from the public then there will be less crime. The answer to that is no, only criminals will be armed. Just because someone uses religion or guns in evil manner doesn't make the tool they used evil. It makes the person evil. In the case of religion, it also illustrates how easily people can be duped, simply because they are too lazy to actually study or think something through.

Yes, christianity has things in common with other religions and your point is what exactly.

Stephanie wrote:So who's version of sacred text is correct? I don't particularly care because I think there is some truth in all of them.

How do you seperate the truth from falacy?

Stephanie wrote:We should be kind to other people. We should take care of our elderly and raise our children to be respectful, productive citizens and children should mind loving parents because these things are good for us. We shouldn't copulate like dogs in heat or abuse our children or kill for the sake of killing. These things are bad for us.

Jesus said the samething, yet you condemn the very instruction he gave.

Stephanie wrote:Christians have not cornered the market on altruism or humanitarianism or any other virtue any more than they have the market cornered on the greed, murder, and rape.

Alot of good things and alot fo bad things have been done in the name of Christainity. The question again is does that make christainity bad or does that make the people that commited these acts bad?

Stephanie wrote:If thinking your loved ones who've passed on are flitting around heaven listening to the harps of angels and basking in the glow of god's love because they believe what you believe makes you feel good, more power to you. I'm not buying it.

First, of all the majority of my family were agnostic. All I know is that when they died they went into the hands of a just and merciful God. I don't know where they are.

Secondly, judging from your post, my views scare you. Sister I'm not forcing them on you, nor am I changing them to suit you. You pointed out earlier the lifestyle people should have? My question to you is who decided that was a good lifestyle? Who really grants the right to life, liberty, and ones abilty to seek their happiness? Was it man himself? If it was man then he can change these rights as he pleases and thus they are not absolute. They are fluid and change with the changing tides of society. If you choose to believe that, knock yourself out.

I believe that oiur rights come from God almighty. I beleive that God set out a line of behavior, spent a large part of the Old testament illustrating that not living by this absolute moral code would have dire consequences. I believe the mess you see this nation intoday is the direct result of our disregard for absolute code of moral behavior.

If you choose to beleive otherwsise, I'm certainly not stopping you. I will tell you that you have no leg to stand on when you complain about what is happening in this nation, simple because the answer to your complaint is that the moral code is whatever those in power say it is.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you're saying that if we don't do our part, we can't get into Heaven, is that correct?

That is correct!

Then explain Luke 23:43 when Jesus tells the sinner on the right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you're saying that if we don't do our part, we can't get into Heaven, is that correct?

That is correct!

Then explain Luke 23:43 when Jesus tells the sinner on the right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. Additionally, if you notice even though the man died under the old covent, he seems remorsful for his life. However, Jesus the son of God had the authority to forgive sins.

So you're saying that Jesus could make an exception to the rules for this man because he had the "authority" but his dying on the cross is not enough to get me into Heaven as that was only a portion of God's covenant with God and that I am responsible for completing that covenant by living righteously by the book and adhering to everything it says as mandated by Jesus for my entrance into Heaven.

Is that about the gist of it?

Aaron wrote:So you're saying that Jesus could make an exception to the rules for this man because he had the "authority" but his dying on the cross is not enough to get me into Heaven as that was only a portion of God's covenant with God and that I am responsible for completing that covenant by living righteously by the book and adhering to everything it says as mandated by Jesus for my entrance into Heaven.

Is that about the gist of it?

Actually, that is what Jesus said as recorded in Scripture. All I'm doing is telling you what is written. Didn't Jesus tell us that we would be judged by his word. Is not his word found in scripture..

I know what I believe is my saving grace but I would be interested in Keli's and SB's take on your opinion.

Cato wrote: As I pointed out to Aaron if God's providence didn't play a role someone will have to explain to me why the catholic church didn't make changes to bring the bible in line with church tradition.

Willy, that sure was a strage statement. Do you really not know who commissioned the creation of the Bible? And the arguing and infighting that occurred before its contents were approved.

Willy, the contents of the present day Bible which you base your faith upon is rooted in the following two (2) meetings of Christian Church Leaders, to wit:

The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied subsequently to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 and possibly referred to in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The First Council of Nicaea is believed to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[7] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[8] The writings and teachings of early church fathers presented even greater challenges for the Church in defining exactly what was considered the heretical theology prior to the First Council of Nicaea.

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote: As I pointed out to Aaron if God's providence didn't play a role someone will have to explain to me why the catholic church didn't make changes to bring the bible in line with church tradition.

Willy, that sure was a strage statement. Do you really not know who commissioned the creation of the Bible? And the arguing and infighting that occurred before its contents were approved.

Willy, the contents of the present day Bible which you base your faith upon is rooted in the following two (2) meetings of Christian Church Leaders, to wit:

The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied subsequently to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 and possibly referred to in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The First Council of Nicaea is believed to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[7] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[8] The writings and teachings of early church fathers presented even greater challenges for the Church in defining exactly what was considered the heretical theology prior to the First Council of Nicaea.

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And . . .

Aaron wrote:I know what I believe is my saving grace but I would be interested in Keli's and SB's take on your opinion.

The matter of faith and works is a difficult one, and I agree that the Bible best speaks for itself before we presume to speak for it.

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yoruselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one should boast."

Romans 8:38 " For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The resolution of the matter is that those of us who are in Christ are a new creation, and we are obligated to act like it. The wages of sin is death (wages are earned) but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. So while I disagree with Cato in the strongest of senses that "staying saved" is something that can be earned by humans, I agree with hinm that Christians are obligated to keep Jesus' commandments. There are a great many professing christians who make me wince.




John 10:27 "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."

Aaron wrote:I know what I believe is my saving grace but I would be interested in Keli's and SB's take on your opinion.

So salvation is completely the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, agreed. But I think we cavalierly ignore Jesus' moral precepts to our own peril. It calls into question whether we really believe or if we have merely "hedged our bets" by "purchasing" fire insurance. There is much in Scripture on God's discipline, and if we are His we can expect His lessons to include unpleasantness.

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your candor and believe it or not, most of your views. I just don't practice my faith with organized religion. I've tried but I always end up feeling dirty.

Aaron wrote:Thanks Mike, I appreciate your candor and believe it or not, most of your views. I just don't practice my faith with organized religion. I've tried but I always end up feeling dirty.

Well, surely salvation is found in Jesus Christ rather than a human institution; however, the Bible says not to forsake meeting together (in Hebrews somewhere), so I don't think it wise for someone who trusts in Jesus to miss regular meetings of believers. The world has incredible influence through the media and other people, and our own flesh consistently is given to appetite over righteousness. Going the Christian life alone strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron makes my case for me, Cato. You can talk all you like about how selective I what I believe to be anything approaching historically accurate. The TRUTH of the matter is men have decided which books to include or exclude for thousands of years and the debate continues.

And your 100% certain of that. You are 100% certain that God's providence played no role in the matter?

I'd have to believe in "god's providence", which I don't. Do I think it's possible? Sure, anything is possible.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I have no clue who the authors of these books were. The OT dates back to antiquity, handed down orally and hand written and translated numerous times over the course of thousands of years. The NT isn't as old, but the gospels were not written in Christ's lifetime. They weren't written in the months and years after his death. Nearly all were written and incorporated into the book you so revere by people who were not firsthand witnesses decades, even centuries after his death.

So you are saying that Peter, John, Matthew, we not first hand witnesses?

No, what I'm saying is they didn't write the gospels attributed to them. They may have written something, or more likely they just told stories that were eventually written down by others.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Don't like a book? Disagrees with the variety of Christianity you preach or follow? Toss it out. This has been done numerous times by various leaders and various groups and within a generation or two those books become some sort of fantasy or heresy and the people who continue to include them cease to be "real" Christians. After all, your group knows best.

As I pointed out to Aaron if God's providence didn't play a role someone will have to explain to me why the catholic church didn't make changes to bring the bible in line with church tradition.

They did, and I think you know that they did.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Organized religion is, always has been, and always will be, a way to control people and access their wealth. These are the things that Christianity has in common with Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism.

And as I have asked does that make religion bad or those that use religion to control others bad? Your arguement is the same as the gun control people. If guns are taken from the public then there will be less crime. The answer to that is no, only criminals will be armed. Just because someone uses religion or guns in evil manner doesn't make the tool they used evil. It makes the person evil. In the case of religion, it also illustrates how easily people can be duped, simply because they are too lazy to actually study or think something through.

Yes, christianity has things in common with other religions and your point is what exactly.

When religion is used as a weapon, as organized religions so frequently are, it is bad.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:So who's version of sacred text is correct? I don't particularly care because I think there is some truth in all of them.

How do you seperate the truth from falacy?

Proof, evidence, concrete facts is how I determine what is truth and what is fiction. How do you?

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:We should be kind to other people. We should take care of our elderly and raise our children to be respectful, productive citizens and children should mind loving parents because these things are good for us. We shouldn't copulate like dogs in heat or abuse our children or kill for the sake of killing. These things are bad for us.

Jesus said the samething, yet you condemn the very instruction he gave.

I never condemned Jesus. What I said was he wasn't the product of a virgin birth and he didn't rise from the dead. I think he was probably a rather gifted person who encouraged people to be kind to each other.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:]Christians have not cornered the market on altruism or humanitarianism or any other virtue any more than they have the market cornered on the greed, murder, and rape.

Alot of good things and alot fo bad things have been done in the name of Christainity. The question again is does that make christainity bad or does that make the people that commited these acts bad?

I ask you the same thing about Muslims, Mormons, and pagans.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:]If thinking your loved ones who've passed on are flitting around heaven listening to the harps of angels and basking in the glow of god's love because they believe what you believe makes you feel good, more power to you. I'm not buying it.

First, of all the majority of my family were agnostic. All I know is that when they died they went into the hands of a just and merciful God. I don't know where they are.

Secondly, judging from your post, my views scare you. Sister I'm not forcing them on you, nor am I changing them to suit you. You pointed out earlier the lifestyle people should have? My question to you is who decided that was a good lifestyle? Who really grants the right to life, liberty, and ones abilty to seek their happiness? Was it man himself? If it was man then he can change these rights as he pleases and thus they are not absolute. They are fluid and change with the changing tides of society. If you choose to believe that, knock yourself out.

I believe that oiur rights come from God almighty. I beleive that God set out a line of behavior, spent a large part of the Old testament illustrating that not living by this absolute moral code would have dire consequences. I believe the mess you see this nation intoday is the direct result of our disregard for absolute code of moral behavior.

If you choose to beleive otherwsise, I'm certainly not stopping you. I will tell you that you have no leg to stand on when you complain about what is happening in this nation, simple because the answer to your complaint is that the moral code is whatever those in power say it is.

I didn't point out a lifestyle people should have. I've said we shouldn't rape, murder, assault, and hurt each other. You're the one who wants to dictate lifestyle choices on people, not me.

If your god is so powerful and knowledgable and loves us all so much he'd put an end to the wars and the perverts and terrorists and diseases. Those victims are real people and if he existed and is what you think he is he'd put an end to the suffering of all those people. He could do it today. He could have done it without all the fire and brimstone.

As far as those moral absolutes you're looking for, you decide what your personal moral absolutes are and I determine mine and in the United States of America the Constitution determines those. If you don't like the moral absolutes in COTUS, there is a mechanism for changing them. It has been done in the past, and can be done in the future. If you really think the 10 commandments should be the law of the land you need to get started on amending COTUS. As far as what the rest of the world does, all Americans can and should do is lead by example.

You do scare me, because you want to impose your morality on the rest of our nation. You want to restrict the liberty of others and you bet that scares me.

SheikBen wrote:

Aaron wrote:Thanks Mike, I appreciate your candor and believe it or not, most of your views. I just don't practice my faith with organized religion. I've tried but I always end up feeling dirty.

Well, surely salvation is found in Jesus Christ rather than a human institution; however, the Bible says not to forsake meeting together (in Hebrews somewhere), so I don't think it wise for someone who trusts in Jesus to miss regular meetings of believers. The world has incredible influence through the media and other people, and our own flesh consistently is given to appetite over righteousness. Going the Christian life alone strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

I'm not alone. For one, I have you. And there are others. I just don't do it in a conventional method.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron makes my case for me, Cato. You can talk all you like about how selective I what I believe to be anything approaching historically accurate. The TRUTH of the matter is men have decided which books to include or exclude for thousands of years and the debate continues.

Absolutely. And men- literally, not just as "mankind", but by gender- and not women, have decided the Gospels and the Doctrines for those thousands of years. And that has been true with most of the world's major religions. It's more of that control thingy- including control of one gender of "mankind" by another.

It's more of that control thingy- including control of one gender of "mankind" by another.

Maybe. Maybe not. The control thingy was mostly known as "mores", often constituted the generally accepted but unspoken rules of society, and was often viewed as a positive thing.

Obviously one can use religion to do evil, just as one can use nuclear physics to do evil. But it would be quite silly to say that the laws of physics do not apply because they can be used for ill.

I do not happen to believe that 'Allah' spoke to Muhammad and made him his messenger, but this "unbelief" has nothing to do with the actions of some Muslims. I believe in Jesus as the Truth, not because of what that Truth does "for me" or "for my society," but for Who He is.

Surely religion has been used as a means of social control, just as have city ordinances. In totalitarian Russia during Stalin's reign, the social control came from the atheist government. Religion has neither the franchise on good works or social control, nor even the patriarchy.

I have asked this before, and it comes from the late Mike Royko, I believe. If you were walking in a bad neighborhood and seven men were walking on the sidewalk towards you, would you not be relieved if you found out they were coming from a Bible study?

Stephanie wrote:
When religion is used as a weapon, as organized religions so frequently are, it is bad.

So by what you are saying, if I pick up a club and beat someone with it, the club is bad? That don't remotely make sence. What about the person swinging the club, isn't he the one that is bad? Frankly it is not the tool that is bad it is the person using it.

Stephanie wrote:Proof, evidence, concrete facts is how I determine what is truth and what is fiction. How do you?

So you are telling me that you take absolutely nothing on faith? Do you know with certainty that neutrino's exist. I know you've been told that, probably by experts, but do you KNOW they exist.

Stephanie wrote:
I never condemned Jesus. What I said was he wasn't the product of a virgin birth and he didn't rise from the dead. I think he was probably a rather gifted person who encouraged people to be kind to each other.

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. If what you are saying is so, then he is nothing but a liar and no better than the charletans that occupy the air waves today

Stephanie wrote:

I didn't point out a lifestyle people should have. I've said we shouldn't rape, murder, assault, and hurt each other. You're the one who wants to dictate lifestyle choices on people, not me.

I have not once ever even remotely suggested that you follow what I beleive, and I have not nor never will use or suggest the use of the force of law to require you accept what I believe.

Stephanie wrote:If your god is so powerful and knowledgable and loves us all so much he'd put an end to the wars and the perverts and terrorists and diseases. Those victims are real people and if he existed and is what you think he is he'd put an end to the suffering of all those people. He could do it today. He could have done it without all the fire and brimstone.

Man brings a vast majority of the suffering in this world on himself. Mankind has the ability to end alot of it, but things like greed, lust, covetness, and arrogance are also in this world. The simple fact is man chooses his own way, even though, just of Jeremiah said the way of man is not in himself.

Stephanie wrote:As far as those moral absolutes you're looking for, you decide what your personal moral absolutes are and I determine mine . . .

You think so, huh, then answer me this, it is the same question I've posed Ziggy, is spilling innocent blood wrong?

Stephanie wrote:...and in the United States of America the Constitution determines those. If you don't like the moral absolutes in COTUS, there is a mechanism for changing them. It has been done in the past, and can be done in the future. If you really think the 10 commandments should be the law of the land you need to get started on amending COTUS. As far as what the rest of the world does, all Americans can and should do is lead by example.

So you are syaing that our rights exist only because the founders said they exist?

The truth is our rights exist far beyond the US Constitution. All the US Constitution does is codify some of the rights endowed by our creator.

Stephanie wrote:You do scare me, because you want to impose your morality on the rest of our nation. You want to restrict the liberty of others and you bet that scares me.

So I now want to impose my morality on others? That is so pathetic Stephanie and you know it. I have given you some credit for intelligence until now. Like Ziggy and Terry, the second you realize your arguement is flawed or that I'm not going to change my views, all you can do is accuse me of trying to impose my views on others. You call yourself a champion of liberty, but you are no such thing. You are a champion of liberty so long as people agree with you, but the second they don't liberty goes out the door.

Not once, not once, have I even remotely suggested the use force, the law, or anything else for that matter to impose anything I believe on anyone else. If you go back and read you will notice I have always said people make choices and they have to live with the ramifications of the choices they make. I've layed my case and beliefs out before you and everyone else here on this board. You have a couple of choices, you can either except or reject what I've said. That is your choice and sweetie it is you that has to live with the choices you make. Can I force you to make good choices or to accept my views? No, I can't and I won't.

Aaron wrote:Thanks Mike, I appreciate your candor and believe it or not, most of your views. I just don't practice my faith with organized religion. I've tried but I always end up feeling dirty.

One thing I want you to understand Aaron, I'm not member of any organized religious group. Regarding Christainity, we supposedly worship the same God, the same Christ, using the same bible and yet there are thousands of divisions each practicing their own brand of christainity. How can that be? I believe it is becaus eman wants to insert his own brand of religion in place of Christainity, so he doesn't have to conform to the teachings found in the New Testament. Many of those teachings are hard to live by, based on what the world is today.

The world is no harder to live by today then when man broke every covenant God made with us since the beginning. The failures began with Adam and continue through every book of the bible. Thus the reason for Jesus dying for our sins. Man will fail every time, God knows that and that is why he eliminated us from the covenant.

The reason there are so many denominations is the same reason for so many failures by man and that is free will. God could have dictated that we serve him but instead he gave us the freedom to choose.