Let me ask you something. An Administrator has said something to me, and two Moderators; What, am I not " Fitting in here or something? Is this place just for a certain group or belief or view? Have I rubbed someone the wrong way?
I mean just let me know, I can leave if I don’t fit in.
I have no intention of getting involved with defining who is or is not a Christian, but the following statements are not true of many Christians, such beliefs often being limited to specific denominations:
Even the statements regarding Jesus and the Trinity are not held by a number of people who who identify as Christian. (And the number of Christians who hold any beliefs regarding speaking in tongues is very small percentage of people who identify as Christians.)
I’ll try - but it is from 1948. I picked it up for $1 at the Irvine California library sale - best library sale book ever. I got two other books in the series - a selection of Aristotle’s and Erasmus in Praise of Folly. I lent the book to my daughter, but I bet I can search for it given the series name.
How does “most Christians are Trinitarians” contradict “are not held by a number of people who identify as Christian”? Probably the overwhelming majority of Christians are Trinitarians, but you implied that all Christians held the beliefs you listed and that is not accurate.
Among the rest of the items on your list;
speaking in tongues is a minority liturgical event practiced by relatively few Christians. Not all Baptists engage in that practice and all Baptists make up only about 10% of the U.S. Throw in Pentecostal groups and you might pick up another 5%. If you add in all the Charismatic Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, you might pick up another 1%. It is simply not a reliable indicator of Christianity.
tithing might be held as a good thing by some number of Christians, but it is not practiced by anything resembling a majority.
taxation of church property is a political view, not a theological one and its proponents and opponents vary by country and by denomination. I would agree that the majority of Christians in the U.S. prefer that churches not be taxed, but it is hardly a hallmark of Christianity, per se. (Have you seen any major rallies by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus favoring the taxation of religious property?)
You think Catholics believe in speaking in tongues? Or are they not part of the mainstream?
BTW, do you know what the Anthropic Principle is? It is usually used to explain why our universe did not have to be created to fit us - how is in any way supporting god?
I think Catholics are definitely part of the mainstream, but in America its a bit different; besides, my list was a list of things I don’t believe in, as opposed to what I think most Christians do, not all Christians. The list was to show that I was not Christian, not to show that I am an expert in Christianity. The man was trying to label me something I am not; and I don’t like that. I was trying to show my beliefs were different than Christians. Although I do believe some things they do.
And I most certainly know what the Anthropic principle is, and it definitely proves that God is real. If I walk down a street and find a dime on the ground, I may think nothing of it. If I further walk and find 3 dimes on the ground, I may now suspect someone dropped them by mistake. Yet if I go further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each individually standing on their edges and perfectly balanced, then I can correctly assume that this was " Deliberately Done." THAT is the Anthropic Principle in a nutshell, and the Universe was obviously deliberately done, " In my view", because I begin to see it is NOT the popular view here.
The list I gave was to show that I am not Christian, not to prove that I am an expert on Christianity; I can be wrong about things, but I am not wrong about what I am and am not.
In further example;
Christians believe that you have to " Accept Christ" to be saved, I do not.
They believe in and celebrate Christmas, I do not
They celebrate Easter, I do not
They celebrate Valentines day, I do not
They think they are Gods anointed , I do not.
If you think Jesus was the son of God you are Christian - though perhaps not any particular branch. I don’t and I’m not.
That’s what I figured you thought it meant. What it actually says is that the universe is fit for intelligent life because if it were not there would be no intelligent life to wonder about it. You can think about planets the same way. Did God create the earth for us to live on? No - the reason we live on Earth - and not Venus or Pluto - is because only the earth is fit for life.
To steal from a better, it is like water in a hole marveling about how the hole is just the right size for it.
Let’s move on to the Higgs Boson - you don’t think it is really a god particle, do you? Prof. Higgs is probably tearing his hair out right now.
Man, you can’t tell me what I am! I am not a Christian. I wonder how an Atheist would react if some Christian told them they are not an Atheist. You don’t define me, and Christians do NOT hold a monopoly on belief in God. You got your nerve. Produce one Christian here who would agree with you after reading what I believe in, they would not call me brother. Good grief!
And I know its a God particle; more than that, all proteins are God particles , they never form except in already living cells, and scientist cannot create them in a lab. They cannot create DNA in a lab. Proteins must fold perfectly. Turning them on and off; if a first living cell had formed without a creator, the cell would still have had to replace each of its proteins as soon as it wore out. If the cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of the replacement proteins, the cell would have died as soon as the first protein wore out. Stunning evidence of a creator who knows how to turn them off.
Mickiel, any serious study of such theology requires you to be cognizant of some vital, and important facts.
The bible, as we know it today, originated roughly 700 years before the Year One. It was added to, modified, and expanded many times since. Some religious works were discarded. It was further added to, revised, and edited in the few hundred years post-1AD. It has since been highly interpreted, which means the words may have been distorted and the meaning changed from the original.
Each level of addition and change must be considered with the beliefs and knowledge of the time. Consider the social mores of 700BC. Now consider 1AD, 100AD, and later. Each time and social structure put its stamp on what was written, what was revised, and what was* not* written.
What seems strange to you (and to me) may be quite in line with the times, at the time. The congregation is getting out of line? Threaten them with demons, considered the best explanation of disease at the time. A lake of fire? Eternal torment? Pretty easy to see how those threats could be effective. Tormented for a year? Awful. 100 years? Worse. Forever? Worst of all.
If the same text were written now, the threats might be eternal atomic bomb explosions or continuous exposure to Miley Cyrus’ Twerking videos.
Not strange at all if you take into account human history and the quirks of the ignorant individuals who wrote down what we now consider sacred. They were just ordinary people, reflecting what they knew and adding their own superstitions and fantasies.
To this day, I have never met a “true christian”. You do not pick and choose what to believe from the book of contradictions, aka, the Bible. But if you believe Christ is the son of a god, then you’re certainly not Phrygian, you’re christian, albeit not a true one.
Not relevant. I asked you to pare down your list to those which have original references to Jesus, as opposed to secondary sources which merely cite the primary sources.
You don’t know what your talking about. The very term " Christian", has NEVER been endorsed by Jesus or God, and it only appears in the bible, ( some bibles), twice. The original followers of Christ called themselves " The Way:", but the Romans first coined the term Christian, and the followers of Christ just adopted that later. Know your history. I believe in Jesus and that he is the Son of God, that in no manner MAKES me some Christian, you have been deceived into believing that it does.
Even Jesus told his own followers, " Other Sheep I have that are not of this fold", meaning he has people who believe in him who are not Jews or of a certain sect.
“The need to know”… is what I believe the intention is. If the threat of eternal damnation inspires you to repent, it achieved the objective. If you find later on that the threat was symbolic, that God loves everyone and that everyone ends up as brothers and sisters in the same place, are you going to be mad and say “Hey, I could have sinned all I want without ramifications, and I missed out on that? Damned it!” I don’t think so. The short life here on Earth begins to pale in comparison to the eternal afterlife. Right?
But in this case “the ability to know”… is even more important.
“All sins are created equal. Sin is sin.” I do not believe this. Murder is infinitely worse than lying. I mention this, because of the purpose of exaggeration. The intention is to garner obedience.
The threat of an eternal hell for someone living in the 1st century AD is horrific, because they can’t possibly conceive of anything else. But was the threat effective? Apparently not. People still killed one another.
The Bible is heavily flawed. It strongly intimates that human beings having written those chapters of their own accord, not driven by the hand of God. And these kinds of points raised like the seeming illogical idea of **eternal damnation **are just the most forward of them.
Without deviating off topic too much, I just have to say that the whole “Old” and “New” Testaments is befuddling. The Bible said God is perfect. So there should be “The Testament”, no old and new. The Old suggests a revision was necessary. That means “flawed.”
Oh and by the way, God killed off everyone save Noah and his family, because he considered the human race mostly a failure at that point. But he failed yet again. Things weren’t much better with all who were begotten from Noah’s ancestral line. God couldn’t get it right the second time, so he gave up and just conceived of a sin forgiving construct, by sacrificing his corporeal son. That’s no perfect God as I see it.
I really sincerely wish that there was a divine being who started the whole universe and that WE ARE IMPORTANT TO HIM… But I have serious doubts about the Biblical God based on all I’ve learned in my life thus far. He is far too human and flawed for an omnipotent being who created the entire universe.
Hey, I was going to give more list a lot longer , but after being question by the Mods, I sensed I need to back down some because I sense some may be offended here by those list of evidence.
)