Why are you religious?

[Made in Heaven]

It's quite funny that you claim you're educating someone on their own holy book, given that just a few posts above you've made claims about the Quran that are not even in there...Besides, you have zero thought of your own, you always only regurgitate memes and now, repost an article...which by the way doesn't even refute the specific example Luffy was talking about...

This dude's amazing at deluding himself into thinking he's saying anything meaningful. First he brings up blatant falsehoods in stating that the Prophet rode a winged horse, which isn't the case, and then claims that Islam views the Earth's age as Christians do, again, not the case.

LOL First you guess he'll ignore/deny/dodge these, then you guess he'll come up with explanations which you call 'excuses'. Contradiction much? See, it's you ignoring facts and reason, as whatever he says, you're already dismissing it in advance as an 'excuse'. You render any reasonable discourse void. Plus, I can also just link you to apologetic sites which deal with the rebuttal to every single claim wikiislam makes.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

And yeah, it's often just a matter of translation or interpretation, you denying and ignoring the importance of translation and interpretation doesn't make them any less relevant. Also, it's exactly by using reason that one can interpret a text so your formula is expressing a false dilemma.

"Here's me interpretation and skewered translation of your holy book that's written in a language I can't read and don't know the context of but if you provide any arguments to explain why I'm wrong, then you're just making excuses so I will simply dismiss them anyways because I'm smart."

 

[Ansatsuken]

I never takes serious anyone who post a link like this

You must be registered for see links

and Wiki and think they have the very best/true interpretation of hadith and Quran in their hand.

Not bother to argue further.

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

I never takes serious anyone who post a link like this

You must be registered for see links

and Wiki and think they have the very best/true interpretation of hadith and Quran in their hand.

Not bother to argue further.

Or anyone that takes anything word by word and tries to sound intelligent. A whole new level of retardation.

 

[Deadlift]

I am following a new religion now. This quote was made by Conspirator ages back. "Start following "Sulrajism" or whatever the hell your next username is. You see, by worshipping yourself, you're obviously imitating god. The reason being that god obviously has a god complex, and subsequently spends all day worshipping himself and stroking his own ego. This is the reason why he's indifferent to all the terrorism, diseases and other atrocities that plague humanity. In other words, he's too busy to help. Have fun"

You still haven't confirmed the description I made of you in that Ethereal vs Teenage Jesus thread

Well, they are to islam as mormons are to christians...kind of.

Or Jehovah's witnesses

This dude's amazing at deluding himself into thinking he's saying anything meaningful. First he brings up blatant falsehoods in stating that the Prophet rode a winged horse, which isn't the case, and then claims that Islam views the Earth's age as Christians do, again, not the case.

Bold: How do Christians view the age of the Earth?

From our past interactions I know you to be a careful observer, so why would you put yourself on the same league as Answering Christianity and similar stuff?
No orthodox Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and if you bring up the calculus of the sum of the ages of the pre-flood genealogy, you're assuming that all Christians follow a solo scriptural approach to the Bible, and it simply is not the case.
Moreover, I find it quite odd that, in order to reprove Arian's misrepresentations of Islam, all you could do is misrepresent Christianity as well.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Bold: How do Christians view the age of the Earth?

From our past interactions I know you to be a careful observer, so why would you put yourself on the same league as Answering Christianity and similar stuff?

Didn't mean from my perspective, I meant from Arian's perspective. He said something like Islam views the Earth age as being low, or at least implied it, despite the fact that that topic is never touched upon in the Quran. Which means he was using the whole "Christians think the Earth is very young" argument for Islam, since he loves mixing up his facts. I guess I just worded it wrong.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Question for religious people: why believe in your specific religion instead of just being a deist?

 

[Marin]

Question for religious people: why believe in your specific religion instead of just being a deist?

Religion doesn't necessarily exclude deism.

 

[Deadlift]

Question for religious people: why believe in your specific religion instead of just being a deist?

Because God, being the greatest conceivable being, must be all loving and maximally just, whereas a deistic god is deficient in these parts

 

[Hyun ryu]

Or Jehovah's witnesses

I'd rather stick with the mormon analogy.

I still uphold that Jehovah's witnesses meet the basic criteria of being considered christian. They believe in one God, they believe the Bible is His word, they believe Jesus died for our sins, and they try to follow the Bible's teachings. It's another question that they take it literally, that's just dumb, not a criteria they fail at. Being trinitarian isn't a biblical criteria for being a follower of Christ either. (On the other hand, I brought up mormons coz they've fabricated a new holy book and a new prophet [Joseph Smith] some 1,8 thousand yrs later...just like the ahmadiyya claimed a new prophet around the end of the 19th century).
Back to JWs, they believing that Jesus is the archangel Michael....well, that's a secondary issue as what matters is that this person, no matter who he really was/is, died for us and got resurrected. That's the good news to be preached. It's in the New Testament. That Christ died but has risen. (And Jesus himself specified the Kingdom as the good news). Not that Christ, who is part of the trinity, died but has risen. As per the Bible and Jesus himself. An outsider like me couldn't care less what the Catholic Church specifices as the criteria for going to heaven. First they'd have to justify their own validity, which they do (try), and that I may accept or may not accept upon examination, just as I may accept or may not accept that JWs claim salvation is through the Organization. The only difference is that JWs claim it's not the pope but their Leading Body that God communicates through. Notwithstanding that the Church has some 1,8 thousand yrs advantage of legitimacy. But time is never the deciding factor alone, or else I wouldn't belong to a religion which also came hundreds of yrs after the beginning of the Church. Nonetheless JWs are false prophets, but they probably honestly believe the stuff they say. And the average folks there are just gullible coz they don't look into the history of the Watch Tower. Not that Church history is more heartwarming...the point is, they base the role of the WT on biblical prophecies...and of course there is much room for all kinds of interpretation which gives birth to all these sects...yes JWs are a bunch of bigotted and brainwashed sect fanatics, but they are christian bigotted brainwashed sect fanatics. They base Jesus's identity on their own interpretation of the Bible. It's another question it's an interpretation noone else accepts...but it's still based on the Bible. So they are closer to christianity than mormons. In fact they are christians, while mormons are debatable. James White for one doesn't consider mormons christian just like he chastised Nabeel for speaking as if he was a mainstream muslim while White himself doesn't really consider ahmadiyyas muslim either. Of course ahmadiyya are still tied more to islam than anything else, but their teachings violate the basics of the islamic credo (shahada)...just like some other islamic sects which, for this very reason, are rather heretic. And heretic here is different than in christianity. As in islam there is no Church. So from a catholic perspective, of course JWs are heretics (kind of like everyone and everything outside the Church), while ahmadiyya are heretics compared to the central teaching- and not compared to the central authority. Other than that from an orientalist viewpoint one might consider ahmadiyyas muslim. But theologically, they are something else. Sure they only changed a few things, one might say, but that affects the basics. JWs saying that Jesus is Michael affects only the badics of trinitarianism, but unless you wanna say only trinitarians can be considered christian, that won't work.
But again, from an other aspect, which I hold more relevant, I'll agree with you that it can be proven they are false prophets- but not because the Jesus=Michael stuff; but because of their false prophecies regarding the end of times. (It's another question I don't think the Church is a "true prophet" either). Nonetheless, JWs are christians, just misled christians. Misled by ...let's say, Satan (or simply by their own corrupt leaders). But simply believing that Jesus is Michael is not something that invalidates a christian. Now I've heard about people who don't even believe Jesus died for our sins (Aim64c said that too). Now that's smtg I'd call unchristian. Or stuff like Hitler believing Jesus was an arian warrior. (So yeah I don't consider Hitler a christian- though it's a card atheists for example often pull).

Anyway I have a feeling you'll still disagree.

 

[Deadlift]

I'd rather stick with the mormon analogy.

I still uphold that Jehovah's witnesses meet the basic criteria of being considered christian. They believe in one God, they believe the Bible is His word, they believe Jesus died for our sins, and they try to follow the Bible's teachings. It's another question that they take it literally, that's just dumb, not a criteria they fail at. Being trinitarian isn't a biblical criteria for being a follower of Christ either. (On the other hand, I brought up mormons coz they've fabricated a new holy book and a new prophet [Joseph Smith] some 1,8 thousand yrs later...just like the ahmadiyya claimed a new prophet around the end of the 19th century).
Back to JWs, they believing that Jesus is the archangel Michael....well, that's a secondary issue as what matters is that this person, no matter who he really was/is, died for us and got resurrected. That's the good news to be preached. It's in the New Testament. That Christ died but has risen. (And Jesus himself specified the Kingdom as the good news). Not that Christ, who is part of the trinity, died but has risen. As per the Bible and Jesus himself. An outsider like me couldn't care less what the Catholic Church specifices as the criteria for going to heaven. First they'd have to justify their own validity, which they do (try), and that I may accept or may not accept upon examination, just as I may accept or may not accept that JWs claim salvation is through the Organization. The only difference is that JWs claim it's not the pope but their Leading Body that God communicates through. Notwithstanding that the Church has some 1,8 thousand yrs advantage of legitimacy. But time is never the deciding factor alone, or else I wouldn't belong to a religion which also came hundreds of yrs after the beginning of the Church. Nonetheless JWs are false prophets, but they probably honestly believe the stuff they say. And the average folks there are just gullible coz they don't look into the history of the Watch Tower. Not that Church history is more heartwarming...the point is, they base the role of the WT on biblical prophecies...and of course there is much room for all kinds of interpretation which gives birth to all these sects...yes JWs are a bunch of bigotted and brainwashed sect fanatics, but they are christian bigotted brainwashed sect fanatics. They base Jesus's identity on their own interpretation of the Bible. It's another question it's an interpretation noone else accepts...but it's still based on the Bible. So they are closer to christianity than mormons. In fact they are christians, while mormons are debatable. James White for one doesn't consider mormons christian just like he chastised Nabeel for speaking as if he was a mainstream muslim while White himself doesn't really consider ahmadiyyas muslim either. Of course ahmadiyya are still tied more to islam than anything else, but their teachings violate the basics of the islamic credo (shahada)...just like some other islamic sects which, for this very reason, are rather heretic. And heretic here is different than in christianity. As in islam there is no Church. So from a catholic perspective, of course JWs are heretics (kind of like everyone and everything outside the Church), while ahmadiyya are heretics compared to the central teaching- and not compared to the central authority. Other than that from an orientalist viewpoint one might consider ahmadiyyas muslim. But theologically, they are something else. Sure they only changed a few things, one might say, but that affects the basics. JWs saying that Jesus is Michael affects only the badics of trinitarianism, but unless you wanna say only trinitarians can be considered christian, that won't work.
But again, from an other aspect, which I hold more relevant, I'll agree with you that it can be proven they are false prophets- but not because the Jesus=Michael stuff; but because of their false prophecies regarding the end of times. (It's another question I don't think the Church is a "true prophet" either). Nonetheless, JWs are christians, just misled christians. Misled by ...let's say, Satan (or simply by their own corrupt leaders). But simply believing that Jesus is Michael is not something that invalidates a christian. Now I've heard about people who don't even believe Jesus died for our sins (Aim64c said that too). Now that's smtg I'd call unchristian. Or stuff like Hitler believing Jesus was an arian warrior. (So yeah I don't consider Hitler a christian- though it's a card atheists for example often pull).

Anyway I have a feeling you'll still disagree.

Oh well, I brought up the Jehovah's witnesses deal only because of our discussion in PM xd

Let me start by saying that the position I was defending then and that I'm defending now is the one of orthodox Christianity, namely, the points in common between the Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Uniatism, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church, Anglicanism and the actual Protestant sects. Of course, this works for their official (or at least mainstream, in the case of some conservative Protestant churches) theology, regardless of the opinion of some theologian or layman who declares himself to be a part of those denominations.

The things they have in common are at least three:

1) the Incarnation, undoubtedly the most important concept in Christianity, followed by Jesus' atoning death and resurrection
2) faithfulness to the Nicene-Constantinopolitane Creed ---> belief that God is a trinity (One God, three persons)
3) highest regard for the Scriptures, though acknowledging the fact that they're not "everything there is" but need to be interpreted and, at least, "integrated" with something else.

By consequence, it would have made sense to argue specifically about the Catholic Church if we were discussing things like a prescriptive vs. descriptive approach to the Creed (Catholicism/Orthodoxy vs Protestantism) or the filioque (Catholicism/Protestantism vs Orthodoxy), but it's irrelevant when we talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation in their entirety.

So to address your point. You start by saying that being trinitarian is not a strictly biblical concept. Granted, the Bible only lays down the basics of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I've already explained that a "solo scriptura" approach is alien to every orthodox Christian's understanding of the Bible.
You say that it doesn't really matter whether Jesus was God or Michael as long as he died for our sins, but I wonder why. Why would have God sacrificed an angel for that? I simply don't see the reason. According to the Christian doctrine, Michael is a warrior whose duty is to protect the creation from the attacks of Satan, but he's fallible, he's imperfect, and has no power over the creation, much less the authority to heal the mankind from their sins. All those things are only God's prerogative, so only God could have decided to atone for our sins.
On the other hand, what would be the biblical way to explain Jesus as Michael? even if I read the Bible as an outsider I'd still have no clue how they associate these two figures.

I absolutely join you in condemning Mormon's manmade holy book, but Jehovah's witnesses defend themselves well in matter of unfalsfiable assertions when they claim to practice the original, I century Christianity.

You ask me if I think that one must be trinitarian to be a Christian. I would say that you must be a trinitarian to be at least an orthodox Christian, but you must believe that Jesus is God to be a Christian. I consider Oneness Pentecostals (modalists, a fringe group diametrically opposite to Jehovah's witnesses) to be Christians, because at least they don't fail to recognize Jesus as God. However, this is my personal opinion and I could be wrong, in fact most Christian theologians (including James White, whom you mentioned) aren't that "clement" and refuse to acknowledge any non-trinitarian movement as Christian.

Of course, it's more Christian to believe that God, even if not a trinity, is actually an immaterial and powerful being, and that Michael is still better than an alien to fit the role of Jesus, but it still doesn't make you a Christian. At the end of the day, both Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are more of groups of Christian inspiration than Christians in toto.

 

[rockleeuchiha]

I love how all in nb are atheist.

i swear lmaooo

 

[Hyun ryu]

Oh well, I brought up the Jehovah's witnesses deal only because of our discussion in PM xd

I figured...and I would have rather kept it private especially that I thought we've already agreed to disagree but I'm in if you insist, as I have no particular interest in whatever way the debate/discourse goes.

Let me start by saying that the position I was defending then and that I'm defending now is the one of orthodox Christianity,

And my post was more like 2 in 1. I explained why I chose the mormon analogy, plus I reflected upon the red herring you brought up by mentioning JWs...

the points in common

Well, those points seem rather arbitrarily chosen, as I'm sure and gonna show how the 'least common multiple' can be found with JWs added.

between the Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Uniatism, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Apostolic Church, Anglicanism and the actual Protestant sects.

I just met a baptist girl at work, she's studying theology, and I just mentioned JWs to her and my debate with you xd And she started off saying that she doesn't consider JWs Christian coz noone does. That's just a no true scotsman so we can leave it at that. Then she went on talking about the 'crucifixion on a cross or on a pole' issue. I told her it's also a secondary problem compared to what I see as the central teaching of Christianity compared to anything else, and well, she just told me she doesn't really wanna continue debating throughout the whole shift so we left it at that too.

Of course, this works for their official (or at least mainstream, in the case of some conservative Protestant churches) theology, regardless of the opinion of some theologian or layman who declares himself to be a part of those denominations.

See, there are always exceptions

The things they have in common are at least three:

1) the Incarnation, undoubtedly the most important concept in Christianity,

Same for many pagan religions which hold that gods took human form. That doesn't make, say, ancient greeks christian. Just sayin'...Plus JWs don't deny that a heavenly being incarnated as Jesus, it's just they hold it was not God Himself but Michael.

followed by Jesus' atoning death and resurrection

And this is what I recognize as the central teaching of christianity, which is unique to them. Neither the jews nor muslims believe that someone sacrificed his life for mankind.

This is held by JWs too, so from this aspect, I don't see why they are not christian.

2) faithfulness to the Nicene-Constantinopolitane Creed ---> belief that God is a trinity (One God, three persons)

Then, I'm afraid, the first christians who had lived prior to 325, sadly fail this criterion. At least, if you phrase it like that

3) highest regard for the Scriptures, though acknowledging the fact that they're not "everything there is" but need to be interpreted and, at least, "integrated" with something else.

JWs meet this condition.

So to address your point. You start by saying that being trinitarian is not a strictly biblical concept. Granted, the Bible only lays down the basics of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I've already explained that a "solo scriptura" approach is alien to every orthodox Christian's understanding of the Bible.

I'm afraid I don't get it. Sola is just the feminine declension of solus, as scriptura is feminine as well. Solo scriptura is grammatically incorrect, but I get that it must be some apologetic neologism to distinguish between accepting only the Bible and accepting the Bible as a prime source but not the only source. However, you'd have to prove that solo scriptura is an incorrect viewpoint, and then you'd still have to prove that the sola scriptura approach correctly interprets the Bible in a way which leads to trinitarianism- but of course I don't require you to do so here, am just saying that applying to the majority or simply stating that sola scriptura is the orthodox view, is not enough to say that JWs are not christian. Plus there are other christian sects which also take the solo scriptura approach and yet they accept the trinity or at least a binitarian view, and still disagree with the orthodoxy on many other issues.

You say that it doesn't really matter whether Jesus was God or Michael as long as he died for our sins, but I wonder why.

Well of course it is an important issue, after all it does matter whether God can take human form and die for us or not...but from the aspect of the ransom, it doesn't matter as long as the value of the sacrifice is that of the same as the debt it is paid for. JWs argue that Adam was a perfect man and as sin entered through one man, it shall be abolished through one perfect man as well- Jesus. Thus, the emphasis is on Jesus's earthly, that is, human form, even trinitarians claim he was 100% God and at the same time 100% human, so even from this aspect, JWs just ignore the '100% God part.'

Why would have God sacrificed an angel for that?

Why would God not make it undoubtedly clear from the time of Abraham or at least Moses, but at least in His ~3 yrs of ministry as the Messiah, that He is actually 3 persons in 1...hmm I dunno. Gonna ask Him in the afterlife, until then I can only give you the answer trinitarians give to the question regarding how can we understand the trinity: 'God works in mysterious ways, you can't understand everything'.

I simply don't see the reason.

No offense but as we're already at it, it's not like faith is always reasonable, it's not like we have to know all the reasons of God, and anyway, 'God being love' as per the Bible, that is, an emotional approach, is not exact science either...if you so wanna look for logical reasons...(By the way science, humans are only quasi rational beings, so I don't worry myself either about not understanding or not knowing everything).

According to the Christian doctrine,

And according to the Bible...?

Michael is a warrior whose duty is to protect the creation from the attacks of Satan, but he's fallible, he's imperfect, and has no power over the creation, much less the authority to heal the mankind from their sins.

JWs argue Michael was always obedient and never sinned plus he volunteered for lowering himself and sacrificing himself, which raised him to the position of being called the Son. Jesus (=Micheal on earth) in his human life never sinned either, in that sense he was perfect. Anyway Jesus himself told his desciples: be perfect as God is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

All those things are only God's prerogative, so only God could have decided to atone for our sins.

The conclusion, that is , the second part of your sentence, doesn't directly follow logically from the first statement (premise) of your sentence...

On the other hand, what would be the biblical way to explain Jesus as Michael? even if I read the Bible as an outsider I'd still have no clue how they associate these two figures.

Well I can only suggest to read their arguments or watch James White vs Greg Stafford, I can't recall all of their arguments either plus I kinda feel awkward for playing the 'devil's advocate' but I'm already used to this role -_-' (So I just wanna point out that I could actually agree with you because it's not like I agree with JWs, I'm just talking from the aspect of why they are christians imo, plus I'm just answerign your questions ._. )

Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if JWs were just desperately looking for a figure to fill the gap and they couldn't find anyone better than Michael xD But let me turn the question around, what would be the biblical way to exclude the possibility that Michael became Jesus? (Note that JWs consider Michael was/is the only archangel, thus, the second highest being to God from the beginning, God's first creation).

I absolutely join you in condemning Mormon's manmade holy book, but Jehovah's witnesses defend themselves well in matter of unfalsfiable assertions when they claim to practice the original, I century Christianity.

I can agree that JWs don't necessarily follow the original, 1st century christianity.

You ask me if I think that one must be trinitarian to be a Christian.

I didn't really ask that as a question

I would say that you must be a trinitarian to be at least an orthodox Christian,

Well, obviously

but you must believe that Jesus is God to be a Christian.

Trickily enough, JWs differentiate between a 'big G' God and a 'small g' god. They say Jesus is god, so this criteria can be accepted so-so.

Besides, I still uphold, and this is just my view, although based on the Bible, that per definition, a Christian is a follower of Christ. In Matthew 16:24 Jesus didn't specify your above criteria as a condition to be a christian. As Jesus himself gave us the tool to recognize his disciples, and JWs meet that criteria, I consider them christian, but of course, the final decision, from a christian aspect as well, is up to God, and we know that many will cry 'my Lord, my Lord', but only little will enter heaven. So it'll only turn out in the afterlife who was a real follower of Christ. (Same for muslims).

Of course, it's more Christian to believe that God, even if not a trinity, is actually an immaterial and powerful being, and that Michael is still better than an alien to fit the role of Jesus, but it still doesn't make you a Christian.

See all the above. No salvation but through the ransom. As per the Bible. Alas, the Church has rephrased it as extra ecclesiam nulla salus...and the WT rephrased it as extra JWs nulla salus xD

At the end of the day, both Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are more of groups of Christian inspiration than Christians in toto.

But isn't it God's inspiration that matters? If JWs are right and God has appointed the WT as the new chosen nation, then ...well then they are right ._. (Of course I consider that bs 'coz of their false prophecies, but then it's not like the Church never made false prophecies Plus JWs have admitted that they were wrong. But again, I can grant you that JWs are fake christians on that basis, but not the Michael one, plus I must say I can't see any well-known fraction which perfectly adheres to the Bible and the practice of 1st century christians...Also, in the end, it's still up to God to decide who can be salvaged.)

 

[Deadlift]

I figured...and I would have rather kept it private especially that I thought we've already agreed to disagree but I'm in if you insist, as I have no particular interest in whatever way the debate/discourse goes.


And my post was more like 2 in 1. I explained why I chose the mormon analogy, plus I reflected upon the red herring you brought up by mentioning JWs...

Of course you understand that I was just making a playful analogy, maybe it would have been a red herring if we were already debating over Mormons' doctrine being Christian, but since I've already agreed with you that it isn't, this shouldn't even be an issue. Anyway, if this annoyed you, you could simply have stated it in your first reply. I can delete the post if you are bothered by the way, so nobody needs to get mad.

Well, those points seem rather arbitrarily chosen, as I'm sure and gonna show how the 'least common multiple' can be found with JWs added.

Not really, maybe there are some points in common to all of them that I didn't notice, but I can guarantee that at least those three are shared by all of them (unless you wanna prove me wrong over this, issue I would gladly debate with you). As for JW's satisfying those three criteria, I doubt it, but let's see..

I just met a baptist girl at work, she's studying theology, and I just mentioned JWs to her and my debate with you xd And she started off saying that she doesn't consider JWs Christian coz noone does. That's just a no true scotsman so we can leave it at that. Then she went on talking about the 'crucifixion on a cross or on a pole' issue. I told her it's also a secondary problem compared to what I see as the central teaching of Christianity compared to anything else, and well, she just told me she doesn't really wanna continue debating throughout the whole shift so we left it at that too.

Glad you take this debate seriously enough to share it with people who study theology, however it's not my point. I don't think that the fact that nobody considers them to be Christians is what precludes them to be so. Maybe she didn't really take the issue seriously, I can't judge her since I've always focused to rebut modalists, as I consider them a major threat for the doctrine of the Trinity

See, there are always exceptions

At this point, if I declare myself to be a thing, then it automatically renders me that thing. You're the first one who wouldn't like that

Same for many pagan religions which hold that gods took human form. That doesn't make, say, ancient greeks christian. Just sayin'...Plus JWs don't deny that a heavenly being incarnated as Jesus, it's just they hold it was not God Himself but Michael.

Bold: Now this is a red herring, we're not discussing whether the Incarnation is a copycat from ancient pagan myths. I would have plenty of objections to this claim and I would be glad to debate the issue with you, but not here and not now, because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is whether Jehovah's witnesses are Christians or not.

As for the rest of what you said, you seem to underrate the element of God becoming man in order to meet the creation. Will come back to this later.

And this is what I recognize as the central teaching of christianity, which is unique to them. Neither the jews nor muslims believe that someone sacrificed his life for mankind.

Yup

Then, I'm afraid, the first christians who had lived prior to 325, sadly fail this criterion. At least, if you phrase it like that

Not really, under this claim lies the assumption that a group of pagan philosophers gathered by order of Constantine with the purpose to pollute Christianity, and because of this "invented" the Trinity. Sadly, this theory is rejected by every source which is only slightly more authoritative than the Da Vinci Code. The councils had the function to codify the beliefs of the Church and condemn heretical doctrines. Standing to this Trinity deal, how familiar are you with the works of Early Church Fathers like St. Justin Martyr, St. Ireneaus of Lyons, Tertullian or St. Ignatius of Antioch? You could say that the "trinitarian bulldog" was St. Athanasius, alongside with the other Cappadocian Fathers, but the Trinity was indeed widely accepted by the Early Church much prior to the Council of Nicea. Also keep in mind that Arius was at least the fourth opponent of the trinitarian doctrines, Praxeas, Sabellius and others predate him.

JWs meet this condition.

Yes, this wasn't an argument against them. Rather, a pre-emptive attack against any cherry-picking of verses of the Bible you might want to do

I'm afraid I don't get it. Sola is just the feminine declension of solus, as scriptura is feminine as well. Solo scriptura is grammatically incorrect, but I get that it must be some apologetic neologism to distinguish between accepting only the Bible and accepting the Bible as a prime source but not the only source. However, you'd have to prove that solo scriptura is an incorrect viewpoint, and then you'd still have to prove that the sola scriptura approach correctly interprets the Bible in a way which leads to trinitarianism- but of course I don't require you to do so here, am just saying that applying to the majority or simply stating that sola scriptura is the orthodox view, is not enough to say that JWs are not christian. Plus there are other christian sects which also take the solo scriptura approach and yet they accept the trinity or at least a binitarian view, and still disagree with the orthodoxy on many other issues.

Having studied Latin for 5 years straight I was as horrified as you when I read this "solo scriptura" for the first time. I can try some fantasized interpretation like "solo" being a neutral ablative used as an adverb in order to emphasize its meaning, resulting in something like "solely! Scripture". But it's pretty much hot air. Fortunately, both you and I don't care about it xd
Briefly:

-sola scriptura is the view that the Scripture is the only source of authority. Theology is admitted as far as it's based on the Bible and explains something in the Bible. On this view, the Creed has a descriptive meaning rather than prescriptive, because it's seen as the best explanation of the facts in the Bible regarding the Divine nature. Virtually, if one comes in with a better explanation than the Trinity, the follower of sola scriptura is legitimate to embrace it.

-solo scriptura is the view that the Scripture is the only authority-period. No Creeds, no dogmas, no theology, no tradition. Nothing but the Bible and the individual interpretation of the faithful. You tell me to prove that solo scriptura is not the right way? Ok

1) it's self refuting, because nowhere in the Bible it's stated that you should follow the Bible alone. The command itself to follow the Bible alone is not in the Bible, so the follower of solo scriptura shouldn't follow it, but of course this is a contradiction
2) moreover, the canon and the translation are, obviously, outside of the Bible, so following this logic I should be solis-antiquis-manuscriptis, learn Aramhaic, ancient Greek and Hebrew, test the manuscripts in order to get a new canon and God knows what else
3) Christianity itself predates its Scriptures, if you want a book-centered religion, Christianity isn't for you.

Anyway, you seem to posit a false dichotomy between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, it simply is not the case, other than solo scriptura (which you will agree with me it's the reductio ad absurdum of sola scriptura) there are much more valid approaches to the Bible, like prima scriptura or the Orthodox view.

Finally, you say that there are other Christian sects that follow solo scriptura. I am so confident with what I said that I challenge you to name just one.

Well of course it is an important issue, after all it does matter whether God can take human form and die for us or not...but from the aspect of the ransom, it doesn't matter as long as the value of the sacrifice is that of the same as the debt it is paid for. JWs argue that Adam was a perfect man and as sin entered through one man, it shall be abolished through one perfect man as well- Jesus. Thus, the emphasis is on Jesus's earthly, that is, human form, even trinitarians claim he was 100% God and at the same time 100% human, so even from this aspect, JWs just ignore the '100% God part.'

I'm not very sure that the 100% God part is "just" something xd
Anyway if you keep telling me what they believe like this, how am I supposed to respond? If someone approaches me claiming he reads the same Bible as I do and then claims that Adam was a perfect man, all I could do is look at him and say "what Bible u reading?"

Why would God not make it undoubtedly clear from the time of Abraham or at least Moses, but at least in His ~3 yrs of ministry as the Messiah, that He is actually 3 persons in 1...hmm I dunno. Gonna ask Him in the afterlife, until then I can only give you the answer trinitarians give to the question regarding how can we understand the trinity: 'God works in mysterious ways, you can't understand everything'.

Not the answer I give to you, I think God made it clear enough in the Gospels (Matt. 28:19, II Cor. 13:14, Rom. 14:17-18, Matt. 3:13-17), and the concept has been reinforced by the works of the Early Church Fathers.

No offense but as we're already at it, it's not like faith is always reasonable, it's not like we have to know all the reasons of God, and anyway, 'God being love' as per the Bible, that is, an emotional approach, is not exact science either...if you so wanna look for logical reasons...(By the way science, humans are only quasi rational beings, so I don't worry myself either about not understanding or not knowing everything).

I can agree with this

And according to the Bible...?

You find him in the Revelation, and he fights and defeats the dragon (Satan), making him fall. Orthodox Bible include a book in which the devil steals Moses' body in order to make Jews commit the idolatrous sin of hero worship, and Michael sto(m)ps him. Anyway, you understand what his role is.

JWs argue Michael was always obedient and never sinned plus he volunteered for lowering himself and sacrificing himself, which raised him to the position of being called the Son. Jesus (=Micheal on earth) in his human life never sinned either, in that sense he was perfect. Anyway Jesus himself told his desciples: be perfect as God is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

Well, here's why I spent so much talk about solo scriptura. Jesus didn't really mean that humans can be like God-full stop. The context of that verse is Jesus explaining that we indeed get closer to the love of God when we love as He loves: unconditionally. You could use this verse to ground the concept of theosis in the Bible, but that would be an in-house debate among Christians, and thus not of our concern.

The conclusion, that is , the second part of your sentence, doesn't directly follow logically from the first statement (premise) of your sentence...

Not if you pay attention at what I meant. the issue is that Michael (part of the creation) doesn't have the authority to atone for the sins of the mankind (other part of the creation), because he himself is either actually or potentially sinful.
1) Only God is perfectly loving and just,
2) Michael is not God
3) Michael is not perfectly loving and just ---> he's sinful, at least in potency (in the Thomistic meaning)

So far, all you've been able to say is that JW's simply believe otherwise, but you gave little to no support to their assertion, so my point over Michael stands undefeated.

Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if JWs were just desperately looking for a figure to fill the gap and they couldn't find anyone better than Michael xD But let me turn the question around, what would be the biblical way to exclude the possibility that Michael became Jesus? (Note that JWs consider Michael was/is the only archangel, thus, the second highest being to God from the beginning, God's first creation).

Come to a Catholic country, and you'll see the great veneration that faithful people pay to Michael. I'm not saying Jehovah's witnesses are trying to proselytize using this card, but I am suspicious, that is.

I can agree that JWs don't necessarily follow the original, 1st century christianity.

We're settled

Well, obviously

So you ultimately agree that Jehovah's witnesses aren't orthodox Christians. It's a big step forward

Trickily enough, JWs differentiate between a 'big G' God and a 'small g' god. They say Jesus is god, so this criteria can be accepted so-so.

Though this would render JW's polytheists so-so, thus heavily ruling them out of Christianity

Besides, I still uphold, and this is just my view, although based on the Bible, that per definition, a Christian is a follower of Christ. In Matthew 16:24 Jesus didn't specify your above criteria as a condition to be a christian. As Jesus himself gave us the tool to recognize his disciples, and JWs meet that criteria, I consider them christian, but of course, the final decision, from a christian aspect as well, is up to God, and we know that many will cry 'my Lord, my Lord', but only little will enter heaven. So it'll only turn out in the afterlife who was a real follower of Christ. (Same for muslims).

Presumably, a follower of Christ listens and believes what Christ says, and remember that I settled those three criteria to recognize orthodox Christians, and also talked about a denomination that is Christian, even though non orthodox. (pay attention not to confuse orthodox with the small "o" with Orthodox with the capital letter)

See all the above. No salvation but through the ransom. As per the Bible. Alas, the Church has rephrased it as extra ecclesiam nulla salus...and the WT rephrased it as extra JWs nulla salus xD

Except I stated I'm not here to defend the RCC, or any other specific denomination

But isn't it God's inspiration that matters? If JWs are right and God has appointed the WT as the new chosen nation, then ...well then they are right ._. (Of course I consider that bs 'coz of their false prophecies, but then it's not like the Church never made false prophecies Plus JWs have admitted that they were wrong. But again, I can grant you that JWs are fake christians on that basis, but not the Michael one, plus I must say I can't see any well-known fraction which perfectly adheres to the Bible and the practice of 1st century christians...Also, in the end, it's still up to God to decide who can be salvaged.)

You misunderstood, by Christian inspiration I meant that they took inspiration from Christianity, not that the Holy Spirit inspired them in order to create their movement. My point would be devastated if you could prove otherwise.
As for the Church, again, I don't get why you have to put some anti-catholicism here or there. I'm fairly sure that if you refrained from doing that, your points would hold much more weight.
The one of the I century Church is correct as far as liturgy and literature are concerned, but some denominations, namely Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy have some pretty strong point to trace their doctrine back to the Early Church. However I can only exhort you to check them out for yourself, as it's not strictly relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Hyun ryu]

So you ultimately agree that Jehovah's witnesses aren't orthodox Christians. It's a big step forward

I never said they are orthodox chistians and never even denied that they are NOT orthodox christians of course, so it's not a step forward, we're still at ground zero, and if you didn't get this much, I wonder if there is a point in keeping this up, but I leave you the choice if you want me to go through all your above essay. Also, it's still unrefuted that if we look at the least common multiple, that is, the ransom, then JWs believe in that. You only focusing on the commonalities among orthodox christians of course excludes JWs, just as if I wanted to summarize the common beliefs of non-trinitarians, trinitarians would be excluded, what a surprise.

 

[Deadlift]

I never said they are orthodox chistians and never even denied that they are NOT orthodox christians of course, so it's not a step forward, we're still at ground zero, and if you didn't get this much, I wonder if there is a point in keeping this up, but I leave you the choice if you want me to go through all your above essay. Also, it's still unrefuted that if we look at the least common multiple, that is, the ransom, then JWs believe in that. You only focusing on the commonalities among orthodox christians of course excludes JWs, just as if I wanted to summarize the common beliefs of non-trinitarians, trinitarians would be excluded, what a surprise.

In these past days, I've enjoyed a lot our exchange, I think it's been a good one. However, I've been astonished, to say the least, at the weakness of this last reply. What a desperate attempt to have the last word!

Let me just say a word about this "least common multiple" argument of yours:
1) I said that the core belief of Christianity is the Incarnation, followed by Jesus' atoning death and resurrection. I have tried to explain why it was necessarily the man- God, for this to happen, who died for our sins
2) you gave no argument whatsoever to show that accepting the ransom and only the ransom, no matter who this is, is enough for one to call himself a Christian. Moreover, Mormons believe in a, let's say, bizarre account of the atonement. So what's stopping me to apply this "least common multiple" as well and include them in the Christendom?
3) your argument commits the taxicab fallacy, that is, applying some criteria until you get to a conclusion and then dismissing the same criteria even though they'd undermine the conclusion as well. If we want to find a real least common multiple, that would be that Jesus died. Or even that Jesus existed. But since even atheists believe those things, it would be rather absurd to call them Christians as well.

You said you could formulate a mirror-argument by summing up the points in common between non trinitarians. I openly challenge you to do such a thing. Seriously, try and let me know if you can.

However, you have a bunch of points of mine to rebut, and two challenges to endorse. Until you do all these things, and considering that you didn't have a problem dismissing my arguments, consider me out of this.

 

[Hyun ryu]

:erm:

In these past days, I've enjoyed a lot our exchange, I think it's been a good one. However, I've been astonished, to say the least, at the weakness of this last reply. What a desperate attempt to have the last word!

Let me just say a word about this "least common multiple" argument of yours:
1) I said that the core belief of Christianity is the Incarnation, followed by Jesus' atoning death and resurrection. I have tried to explain why it was necessarily the man- God, for this to happen, who died for our sins
2) you gave no argument whatsoever to show that accepting the ransom and only the ransom, no matter who this is, is enough for one to call himself a Christian. Moreover, Mormons believe in a, let's say, bizarre account of the atonement. So what's stopping me to apply this "least common multiple" as well and include them in the Christendom?
3) your argument commits the taxicab fallacy, that is, applying some criteria until you get to a conclusion and then dismissing the same criteria even though they'd undermine the conclusion as well. If we want to find a real least common multiple, that would be that Jesus died. Or even that Jesus existed. But since even atheists believe those things, it would be rather absurd to call them Christians as well.

You said you could formulate a mirror-argument by summing up the points in common between non trinitarians. I openly challenge you to do such a thing. Seriously, try and let me know if you can.

However, you have a bunch of points of mine to rebut, and two challenges to endorse. Until you do all these things, and considering that you didn't have a problem dismissing my arguments, consider me out of this.

Oh someone's butthurt. May I ease it. You're right, JWs are not christian They are just Bible Students as per their original name and followers of Christ's teaching and preachers of the kingdom. But they're not christian, so enjoy your victory , I can't argue with your points