A question regarding religious truth?

@ Richard please yes or no to the second question is all im after

@ ever nig i"ve never heard of the "bro code" but thats cool ill accept that as answer to Q1 but like Richard could you please just answer yes or no to Q2 thanks :)

@ Dennis, dude i specifically asked people not to give anything else but answers to those 2 questions please if your gonna answer stick to the request

@ Willow in a roundabout way you eventually gave me your answer but as i've already stated please stick to the order in which I asked the questions for example,

Q1 bible student or unbaptized publisher of Jehovah's witnesses or Jehovah"s witness

Q2 yes or no

and at this point there is no need to justify why by adding scriptures. Thanks

@ Mike N , I admit i just used 1 reference with regards the dictionary I also admit there may be other or even better renditions but that is a moot point as truth is relative, none the less truth is still truth regardless of how its defined, that point aside all i required from you at this point was 1 Roman Catholic 2 Yes , so thanks for answering

@ Jamie LOL thanks for pointing out my apparent error im no scholar in astro physics or what ever science that explains this phenomenon , and I guess when using this as an example of truth i should have researched it better, but for us laymen its blue :) and although its the earths rotation that causes it, is it incorrect to say that it rises in the east, from a human standpoint? Am I wrong? But for future reference i'll use your example of 1+1=2 :)

@ Bewilder , the format im looking for is as i've already made clear is 1 religious or non religious definition 2 yes or no , at this point im not interested in any other information , but thanks anyway

For the record I am not the one giving thumbs down to anyone

In fact I have given a thumbs up to all who answered in the format I requested.

Ok sadly I didn't receive as many responses as I would have liked from the various different denominations calling themselves Christians to show that although they claim to be Christian,they don"t all agree on a number of doctrines including the trinity.So I will post the (mainstream ones that I personally know of) that DO NOT believe in the trinity.

The major groups in alphabetical order are:

Christadelphians

Christian Conventions (aka, Assemblies of Christians, Two-by-Twos, The Truth, etc.)

Christian Science

Church of Christ, Scientist

Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons)

Church of the Blessed Hope (one of the groups otherwise known as Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)

Doukhobors ("Spirit-Wrestlers")

Iglesia ni Cristo

Jehovah's Witnesses

Makuya

Members Church of God International

Molokans

Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus

Subbotniks

There are also many WITHIN their particular denomination that either cannot explain

or that are divided when it comes to the understanding of not only the trinity but many other doctrines.

In New Testament days, denominations did not exist. Paul could write to the Christians in Corinth or the Christians in Philippi or the Christians in Ephesus. Now he would have to write to the Methodists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Brethren, Salvation Army, Elim, Apostolic, New Life - and all the others - in any given place. Denominations have sprouted over the history of the church for a number of reasons. Some have formed over differences in doctrine, some over differences of structure or practice. However it has happened, our situation today seems very far removed from the kind of unity that the New Testament talks about and which God so much desires. Most denominations have little to do with each other. Artificial barriers, caused by denominationalism, abound in every local community

So now we have established this fact (disunity by so called Christians) what doe

it mean to be "Christian)?

Chris·tian (krschn)

adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Now as regards the trinity this is a concept NOT DIRECTLY taught in the Bible infact those who DONT have a predisposed notion could easily draw this conclusion from the many scriptures that EMPHATICALLY separate ALMIGHTY GOD (Jehovah) from MIGHTY GOD(Jesus) and from HOLY SPIRIT which I personally have never seen referred to as GOD or God the spirit, however I have seen it many times rendered The Spirit of God (which is an entirely different definition) Exodus 31-3,Numbers 24-2,Judges 3-10,1Samuel 10-10 etc etc there are literally 100's

So, so far we have established 2 facts 1 Not all

1 Not all "Christians" believe in the trinity and 2 There is disunity with most of the various denominations.

Now if you do the research the majority of them stem from a original form "Christianity" (Jesus's teachings) which by his own admission were not actually his, but actually his fathers, John 7 vs's 16-17.

So unless the Father himself is divided on the matter of truth, which indecently he clarified a valuable point to show that it is actually impossible at Mark 3 vs's 24-25 ,the true religion would have to be

1 Be based on truth

2 Be unified

Now as there seems to be many different understandings or interpretations regarding the trinity doctrine(as being true) I wont use that as a definitive mark of TRUE Christianity (even though I personally believe it is an incorrect teaching ) But as regards the second fact UNITY there is only one GROUP OF CHRISTIANS, that no matter where on this earth they live, ALL of them are unified in there teachings and bel

beliefs and most importantly, unified in their efforts make disciples of people of all nations by preaching the Good News of God's Kingdom ( which indecently was another prerequisite or identifying mark of a TRUE CHRISTIAN Mathew 28 vs's 19-20

So in conclusion based on the facts presented regarding "religious truth" there is only one group who are unequivocally unified right around the globe that claim to be "Christian". Jehovah's Witnesses, Look and see if you can find disunity in the answers they have given and it wouldn"t matter which question or topic I presented regarding TRUTH the answer would ALWAYS be UNIFIED , this is never the case with any other religion, science, or for the record even atheists!

@ Jamie, Firstly let me thank you for your insights you actually taught me something (the difference between something being subjective an objective I had to look it up) I will admit that im no scholar, infact I never even completed 8th grade (equivalent to your junior high i believe) But in your answer you raised an interesting concept , you made reference to the fact that our practical human perspective is not infallible, and you illustrated this with the rainbow. By extension this statement would be equally applicable regarding a human's theoretical perspective Yes? (Just because we have a theory on something doesn't make it fact) Going further even if we do have theory or even a measure of understanding on a particular subject because of "available" facts,unless we have all of the relevant fact's then our understanding or "perception" of said particular subject would always be in a way flawed.To illustrate Imagine trying to convince a person living i

in the 15th century that it's possible that this game of soccer you are now watching could be seen by another person sitting in the comfort of their chamber 10,000 miles away, the only problem is, at that particular time you cannot prove this is possible, does the absence of telecommunications at this point in time discredit this "truth" or make it impossible? Some people foolishly claim that God doesn't exist purely because of a lack of tangible evidence or because his existence violates the law's of their present understanding, in reality they could be compared to the guy from the 15th century.

Thanks to everyone who answered, I hope my reasoning stirred in some of you the desire to look deeper regarding your perspective faith's or beliefs, choosing a best answer based on correctness of information or insighfulness however would appear to be impossible seeing how I dictated the format in which people could answer. If I could divide the points between all of you who followed the format I would. but seeing as how that is impossible I'm open to any suggestions

@ John regarding "Is evolution truth by the standards set here?" Firstly let me give my personal opinion which is NO, this of course will be different from many other opinions but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong and I will also admit my opinion is solidly influenced by my "faith" in our creator but not that fact alone. I don't just blindly follow the "theories" of others who are for or against evolution, but rather I reason on the "present" or "available" facts. When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit a

any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”a

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Specie