Biggest mistake of Christians, and why Christianity is dying

Biggest mistake for Christianity was limiting  selves to a mere 30,000 diffrent types. 

I would of made up one million types. 

Keep in mind.

Christians denom/ Type # 395 

And 

Chistians denom / type  # 15,349

aint got a single thing  to do with one another.  

Chalk and fucking cheese.  

For them to seize within a dozen year from each other would be a one in billion shot. 

On the othet side of the fence. 

We've

Muslim denom/ group #1. 

@ 

Muslim denom/ group #2. 

Group# 2 will last for as long as Group / denom #1 says its allowed to. . 

So thats like one Muslim.  

Wow.  

We all know what happens when youve only one religion to choose from one 

What a fucking selling point hey ? 

Or .

Join the Christians and lottery it up. 

pick the correct #  ( between 1 and 10,000 ) 

'Drum rollllll.' 

Add ' clown music '

Andddddddd.

A Seventh day adventist it is. 

Ha. Thats a fucking gay bunch right there. 

Good luck with that. 

Now do what it adks of you for like. 

Shit i dunno 

 Like the rest of your entire life.  

And goooo. .

Ya started. 

You know whats got ya here but. 

You believed  in a god thing . 

Now Ya gonna have to join a group now unfortunately.  

No, no no. 

Ya cant just say you belive in god ya fuckhead. 

What group is it gonna be ? 

I mean ,

It makes sense right ? 

Sense 

God never once told you your group did he. ?

Back in ya groups 

I repeat.  

GET BACK IN YA GROUPS

Fucking WANKERS. 

 

HANG ON. 

You've  seen the God thing but hey ? 

Guys. 

GET FUCKED. 

You've never seen A god thing have you. ?

Fellas. 

Please dont tell me.

Fuck. 

You sick pysicopathic bastards.  

Ya just picking and going with it.

And ya going with it,   FOR LIFE.  

Beliving in a god looks and sounds sane.

Then for reason unknown 

you go and join .

Christian Group #493 

Why the fuck didn't you join Christian group / denom # 1,743 

Okay, its no longer funny. Bye.

It was never meant to be funny.  

Pfft. Christians don't decanonize texts just because they have become problematic to modern audiences. They deploy reinterpretation and apologetics to make the case that the texts are not problematic at all, you're just reading them wrong.

Also what is it with you and Elisha and the bears??

That's certainly one take on it.  Not necessarily the only or even the right one. But it is one take. And certainly, it's a common view so there must be some veracity to it. 

Christians as a general rule don't think they have the right to determine what is God's word or not.  I'm not talking about the Romanists here. Or perhaps even the EO. They both think that they put the bible together and authorised what books were in the Canon.  Protestants, Dissidents, and others don't necessarily agree with that at all.  And I think the Jews have a different understanding of which books became part of their canon too. 

We do accept however that our understanding and interpretation of it might be coloured by the culture of others, our own culture, and that sometimes, perhaps lots of the time, the interpretations we understand have arisen within a particular culture at a different time and with an erroneous view.  Although we accept the bible is God's word and is infallible, inerrant, and even sufficient, this doesn't mean that we think we have a perfect understanding of it.  Of course, there are traditional views that have significant weight, since they were closest to the time when it was written, and there is some strength to the idea that they might have a clearer understanding of such things.  Yet, with time, other things become clearer, especially as more people from different cultures and broader backgrounds work together to try and understand some of these less clear things or even what was thought to be clear. 

Like any book, the Bible is subject to a similar methodology to understand it.  Some people are dogmatic. We have a couple on our site who are more dogmatic than the Christians.  They of course don't think methodology is necessary unless it is their unique methodology.  Still, thankfully, there is a consensus about most of the Bible. True this consensus itself is coloured by the different schools that come to it. But most are endeavouring to make this meaningful.

The Bear issue here is not an issue for most people. It has become on the other hand one of those texts that some people use and focus on to try and prove points that simply have to disregard many other parts of the Bible.  If we applied that same methodology of picking and choosing texts without the context, then we would find we have a lot less knowledge in this world to draw upon. 

 Was adopting a god from a time they didn't understand, and culture they didn't understand.