Hawking Vs Creation!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Vene**

Orlanth wrote:
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.

Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.

I was talking about the quote from Genesis I posted, not the Leviticus quote.

And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification. But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.

**Monster Rain**

Vene wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.

Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.

I was talking about the quote from Genesis I posted, not the Leviticus quote.

And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification. But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.

Not really. Didn't Vatican II pretty much said that other Christians aren't necessarily heretics?

Christianity, at it's most basic level, is only dependent upon accepting Christ as your savior. Everything else is basically the style in which you worship.

**Kilkrazy**

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Emo Phillips

**Doggles**

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know if labeling it as pathetic is necessary. In fact it seems blatantly inflammatory.

Heh - that's hilarious

**Monster Rain**

Doggles wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:

I don't know if labeling it as pathetic is necessary. In fact it seems blatantly inflammatory.

Heh - that's hilarious

Is it?

**Doggles**

...perhaps I should explain further - I considered Pascal's reasoning to be literally pathetic because it is dishonest "pleading" masquerading as logic. That's an attack on Pascal's argument, and not a personal attack at anyone here obviously!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
...whereas the troll comment is a direct personal attack - and hence inflammatory

**dogma**

Monster Rain wrote:
Is it?

Can you troll someone that's dead?

**whatwhat**

dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Is it?

Can you troll someone that's dead?

So you're saying he lost the wager?

**Doggles**

dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Is it?

Can you troll someone that's dead?

Hee hee - probably not, but apparently I'd give it a try...

**Monster Rain**

Doggles wrote:...perhaps I should explain further - I considered Pascal's reasoning to be literally pathetic because it is dishonest "pleading" masquerading as logic. That's an attack on Pascal's argument, and not a personal attack at anyone here obviously!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
...whereas the troll comment is a direct personal attack - and hence inflammatory

Perhaps I was mistaken then.

**Doggles**

Heh - no probs mate

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh - and I should point out that I'm getting the feeling that I should be a bit less forthright round these parts than in other fora - particularly around this topic, so I'll be toning it down a bit too!

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
A false dichotomy is any situation in which only two options are presented despite the presence of many more. This can be done either by simplification, or ignorance; ie. the additional options may either be folded into broad categories, or simply hand-waved into nonexistence.

Pascal's Wage presents a false dichotomy through simplification; ie. representing the set of belief (referring only to Christianity) as equivalent to the set of non-belief (atheism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) when its absolutely plain that the set of non-belief is far larger than the set of belief. As such, Pascal's argument, that one may as well believe because the probability of being correct is equivalent but the reward is greater for those who believe, is invalid due to a misrepresentation of the probability involved in the course of the wager.

Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth. Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.

Vene wrote:
And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification.

He did so erroneously, as its outside the set paradigm for the Wager.

Vene wrote:
But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.

This was covered in my earlier post, denomination is not relevant according to biblical christianity.
However you are likely to be confused if you claim Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe each other to be damned. a quick look at the scriptures both consider canon would knock that aside. A more correct approach is to consider alternate denominations mistaken in some regards. So long as an expression of faith in Jesus is professed then deonomination is irrelvant to salvation itself. Any deonominational differences are purely political in nature and have more to do with control than actual tenets of faith.

**Mannahnin**

Dogma was correct, as Pascal's Wager attempts to make an argument to people of other beliefs. There are a multiplicity of choices, and his argument only includes two. Mine (for example) is neither of those two.

**whatwhat**

My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway. So it's not a 'nothing to lose' scenario as he makes out at all.

**Monster Rain**

whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.

Wrong.

Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.

Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

**Vene**

You're just trying to handwave away the problem and are just claiming that the flaws in the wager don't need to be considered. I could say that perpetual motion is possible because the paradigm of perpetual motion doesn't include thermodynamics, and I would be wrong because I'd just be ignoring the world around me. Which is what what you're doing with Pascal's Wager, you are trying to construct a binary from a situation that isn't one.

Let's look at a few scenarios:

1) There is no god: The atheist hasn't lost the time and money from worshiping a being that doesn't exist, the Christian has wasted that time. The atheist comes out ahead.

2) The Bible is correct: The atheist is damned and the Christian goes to heaven. The Christian comes out ahead.

3) The Koran is correct: The atheist and the Christian are damned. The atheist didn't spend time while alive going to a false church. The atheist comes out ahead.

I could repeat scenario 3 for every religion ever, which leads to a lot more possibilities than the two that Pascal claimed.

As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

**whatwhat**

Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.

Wrong.

Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.

Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.

**Mannahnin**

How about the point raised on this page?

http://www.helium.com/items/1701904-pascals-wager?page=4

Unfortunately for Pascal’s Wager, if it justifies believing there’s a God who rewards those who believe in him and punishes those who don't, it equally justifies believing anything and everything else that there is a non-zero chance will have the same sort of payoffs, including some that contradict each other.

For example, what if we were to use the same approach as Pascal, but to the question of what to do if we are in a state of uncertainty as to whether there exists a God who provides an infinite reward to people who wear hats and an infinite punishment to those who don’t? You don’t know for certain that such a God exists or doesn’t, so shouldn’t you wear a hat just in case?

How about a God who has contempt for people who believe in Him based on a cost-benefit analysis? He might reward all the people who are intellectually honest and simply admitted that they don’t know one way or the other, and punish all the people who buy into Pascal’s Wager and try to find some way to believe in spite of the uncertainty. Can you be sure such a God doesn't exist? Should you be an agnostic to “be on the safe side”?

What about a jealous non-Christian God, who rewards all believers in all other religions, and even non-believers for that matter, and only punishes Christians? Should you hasten to dump all your Christian beliefs “just in case”?

Do you know for sure that there isn’t a race of alien superbeings about to arrive on Earth who will provide limitless unimaginable benefits to all virgins, and massacre everyone else? Maybe you should think twice about having sex, you know, just to be safe.

The point is there are an infinite number of things you can potentially believe or do based on there being some non-zero chance they’ll turn out to be the key to some great reward. But you can’t do all of them.

**Monster Rain**

whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.

Wrong.

Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.

Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.

I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.

That wasn't the point I was refuting.

**whatwhat**

Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.

Wrong.

Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.

Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.

I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.

That wasn't the point I was refuting.

No I said I didn't consider a belief in the christian god as not losing something. And you said that it wouldn't matter anyway because christ would redeem me.

Meaning that pascal may as well have not bothered since I can pay no attention to christianity at all and if id turns out the christian god does indeed exists, he will redeem me anyway.

In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

**Monster Rain**

Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.

The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.

Wrong.

Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.

Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.

I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.

That wasn't the point I was refuting.

No I said I didn't consider a belief in the christian god as not losing something. And you said that it wouldn't matter anyway because christ would redeem me.

Meaning that pascal may as well has not bothered since I can pay no attention to christianity at all and if id turns out the christian god does indeed exists, he will redeem me anyway.

If you chose to accept him as your savior, that is correct. Granted that this is a really simplified way of looking at it.

whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

**Vene**

Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.

The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.

**Monster Rain**

Vene wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.

The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.

As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.

I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?

**whatwhat**

Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

**Monster Rain**

whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

Say what?

Can you elaborate, please?

**whatwhat**

Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

Say what?

Can you elaborate, please?

Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.

**Monster Rain**

whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

Say what?

Can you elaborate, please?

Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.

Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.

John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?

**Vene**

Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.

The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.

As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.

I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?

Here's a simple one, do you follow the Pope? Roman Catholics need to follow him as he is the vessel by which God speaks, but there are a lot of Protestant sects here that claim he's the anti-christ. This is mutually exclusive. There's also the question of which Bible, for an example, there's churches around here that are KJV 1611 only and there's also the Mormons who require you follow the BoM, it's one or the other, not both.

**whatwhat**

Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

Say what?

Can you elaborate, please?

Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.

Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.

John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?

lol I don't believe that any of that gak. Don't expect me to argue on the basis of what's wrong and right about it.

The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?

**Monster Rain**

Vene wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.

To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.

The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.

As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.

I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?

Here's a simple one, do you follow the Pope? Roman Catholics need to follow him as he is the vessel by which God speaks, but there are a lot of Protestant sects here that claim he's the anti-christ. This is mutually exclusive. There's also the question of which Bible, for an example, there's churches around here that are KJV 1611 only and there's also the Mormons who require you follow the BoM, it's one or the other, not both.

As far as the Pope is concerned, there certainly are fringe groups that think that the Pope is the Anti-Christ but it's fallacious to attribute this attitude to mainstream churches. Also, the choice of Bible text isn't always a requirement for salvation itself but just so that everyone is reading the same translation.

Second, that's not entirely true about the Mormons. They believe that those who believe in Christ but not Mormonism specifically will receive a chance to change their minds after they die. Though I'm not going to sit here and get into whether or not they are actually Christians. In this context I'll be sticking with those that use only the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha thrown in for good measure.

whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.

Hey, he was Jewish.

Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.

Say what?

Can you elaborate, please?

Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.

Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.

John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?

lol I don't believe that any of that gak. Don't expect me to argue on the basis of what's wrong and right about it.

My bad. I thought we were having an open-minded discussion. I won't make that mistake again. Though I'm interested how you reconcile not believing any of "that gak" while at the same time using it to draw conclusions about the guy...

whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?

He wasn't calling himself Jewish, he was Jewish. And He didn't hate anyone. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in discussion in which your reply will begin with "lol."