The Doctrine of the Churches

Originally posted by @fmf
To a neutral non-Christian observer like me, Rajk999's Jesus-based doctrine seems more morally coherent than your one. In light of this, you calling him a "big mouth and bull-headed" is perhaps inadvertent testimony to his tenacity and resilience.

This shows how much you understand about Christianity -- you literally think that outlandish heresies are relevant.

let me guess... You also think that Dive's abibiblical concepts of hell are totally based on solid Christianity.

You clearly have (a) no idea what you are talkign about, and (b) simply support whoever discredits traditional Christianity the most in any debate.

Originally posted by @philokalia
This shows how much you understand about Christianity -- you literally think that outlandish heresies are relevant.

let me guess... You also think that Dive's abibiblical concepts of hell are totally based on solid Christianity.

You clearly have (a) no idea what you are talkign about, and (b) simply support whoever discredits traditional Christianity the most in any debate.

I am interested in debate and discussion about ideas ~ even those ideas I do not subscribe to - like yours and divegeester's and Rajk999's. You simply branding things "heresies" and "outlandish" and "traditional", and what is "solid" or not, isn't as interesting to me as you seem to think.

Originally posted by @fmf
To a neutral non-Christian observer like me, Rajk999's Jesus-based doctrine seems more morally coherent than your one. In light of this, you calling him a "big mouth and bull-headed" is perhaps inadvertent testimony to his tenacity and resilience.

It seems more morally coherent because it is.

Originally posted by @fmf
To a neutral non-Christian observer like me, Rajk999's Jesus-based doctrine seems more morally coherent than your one. In light of this, you calling him a "big mouth and bull-headed" is perhaps inadvertent testimony to his tenacity and resilience.

Not surprising

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
It seems more morally coherent because it is.

Define this views if you would, I find his view conflicting with the very source He claims to
adhere too. If you cannot define them coherently I will assume you have not been following
along very closely.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Not surprising

It is perhaps equally not surprising that you choose not to address the moral incoherence/circular logic underpinning the stuff you propagate and post the glib and ultimately meaningless "Not surprising" instead..

Originally posted by @fmf
It is perhaps equally not surprising that you choose not to address the moral incoherence/circular logic underpinning the stuff you propagate and post the glib and ultimately meaningless "Not surprising" instead..

Since his doctrine has undefined good works and pretty much anyone who is doing these is acceptable to God what is not to like if you have rejected Jesus Christ? The so called righteous in his doctrine can be Atheist inspite of Jesus saying anyone who denys Jesus He will deny.

His doctrine suggests by human efforts doing good works bribes God so that God will accept sinners.

Since none of his doctrine requirements rests on making Jesus Christ Lord, I find it completely understandable Atheist and those who deny Jesus deity finds his doctrine acceptable. It suggests that they can have nothing to do with the the Lord God and be right with Him because they think of themselves as good people.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Since none of [Rajk999's] doctrine requirements rests on making Jesus Christ Lord...

What on earth are you on about? Cannot Jesus Christ see into our hearts and isn't it Jesus Christ who judges us along with the sincerity of our efforts to obey His commandments and is it not Jesus Christ who decides our final fate and whose divine love and mercy we all depend upon... according to Rajk999's understanding of who Jesus Christ was and is? None of Rajk999's doctrine "rests on making Jesus Christ Lord"? Are you taking the mickey? It's as if you don't read what Rajk999 posts. And there you are with your "morality" rooted in 'torturing non-believers for their thoughtcrimes is morally good because anything and everything my god figure does is morally good, so there' [my paraphrasing].

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Rajk999's doctrine suggests by human efforts doing good works bribes God so that God will accept sinners.

"Bribes" God?? Good grief. What are you talking about? "Bribes"?

Are not "human efforts to do good works" exactly and explicitly what Jesus Christ commanded us to do, according to the Bible [and Rajk999's doctrine]? Is not "human effort to do good works", in fact, obedience to Jesus Christ?

"Bribes" God? Do you have your tongue in your cheek?

Originally posted by @fmf
To a neutral non-Christian observer like me, Rajk999's Jesus-based doctrine seems more morally coherent than your one. In light of this, you calling him a "big mouth and bull-headed" is perhaps inadvertent testimony to his tenacity and resilience.

This is exactly what many Christians lack, a Jesus-based doctrine.
This is what the opening post is about.
Many of their cherished doctrines are not preached by Christ.
And the doctrines that Jesus did preach are not supported by Christians

Originally posted by @philokalia
This shows how much you understand about Christianity -- you literally think that outlandish heresies are relevant.

let me guess... You also think that Dive's abibiblical concepts of hell are totally based on solid Christianity.

You clearly have (a) no idea what you are talkign about, and (b) simply support whoever discredits traditional Christianity the most in any debate.

Do you think that your doctrine is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
It seems more morally coherent because it is.

No doctrine based on the teachings of Jesus Christ can ever be overturned. It sits on solid ground and it will outlast the earth. Doctrines based on the teachings of the writings of Prophets, Apostles, Patriarchs of old, History of the Jews etc etc, be twisted and complicated.

Jesus is the truth and the way to eternal life.
Not many will find that way.

Originally posted by @fmf
To a neutral non-Christian observer like me, Rajk999's Jesus-based doctrine seems more morally coherent than your one. In light of this, you calling him a "big mouth and bull-headed" is perhaps inadvertent testimony to his tenacity and resilience.

If that's your observation, then you're as incoherent as Rajk, and just as morally corrupt.

Rajk's so-called "tenacity and resilience" is a testimony of his big mouth and bull-headed stupidity.

Rajk's doctrine flies in the face of 2000 years of church history and the testimony of all the early church fathers not to mention the preponderance of commentaries and literature written by virtually every biblical scholar, pastors, teachers and evangelists know to the church.

Rajk is nothing short of a two faced, double minded and duplicitous counterfeit follower of Christ, and is the laughing stock of the spirituality forum.

You guys are a merely a rudimentary source of entertainment is all.

Originally posted by @secondson
Rajk's doctrine flies in the face of 2000 years of church history and the testimony of all the early church fathers not to mention the preponderance of commentaries and literature written by virtually every biblical scholar, pastors, teachers and evangelists know to the church.

Most of what you typed out was a slew of silly, angry little insults that amount to nothing but huff and puff. The stuff quoted above is the nearest you came to a worthwhile discussion point and yet all it is is a couple of logical fallacies - appeal to authority and a kind of argumentum ad populum - rolled into one. Thanks for your contribution though.

Originally posted by @fmf
Most of what you typed out was a slew of silly, angry little insults that amount to nothing but huff and puff. The stuff quoted above is the nearest you came to a worthwhile discussion point and yet all it is is a couple of logical fallacies - appeal to authority and a kind of argumentum ad populum - rolled into one. Thanks for your contribution though.

You must be taking debating points from Rajk.

The doctrines taught by the scriptures has been fully expounded in these threads for months, and Rajk has consistently avoided any attempt made by me and others to discuss specific verses and passages to his own demise.

Your opinions, as an "non-believer", are of little or no value at all in any discussion relative to Holy writ. Your dismissal of the authority of the Word of God disqualifies you from being a factor, much less the fact that you know Rajk is full of nonsense.