1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    24 Mar '16 04:234 edits
    This was posted in another thread

    Originally posted by josephw
    "That isn't to say that all Christians agree about everything. Some aren't really Christians at all because they fail to believe God at His Word. They deny the basic fundamentals of the faith that God has revealed, and instead twist the scriptures to fit their own paradigm."

    But what are these "basic fundamentals that God has revealed" which if someone doesn't accept one or more of them, then they are not a Christian? Surely if my eternity is as stake there must be some clarity, a list maybe? At least tell me in case I've missed one - seriously.

    Christians? Jehovah's Witneses? other theists?
    I know many atheists were brought up in, or had exposure to, a Christian environment; what were you taught that these fundamentals were?
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    24 Mar '16 05:011 edit
    During my time as a Christian, I have to agree that the bible isn't some hard to decipher text that can be interpreted many different ways. The bible is fairly straight-forward, meant to be taken literally as far its historical accounts (like the creation, flood, migration from Egypt, etc.).

    The disagreements on the bible stem from two major factors: Christians who have become more interested in creating their own version of the religion (like Catholics) and Christians who realize the bible is unfit for modern use (like those who ignore passages like women being in "all subjection" to their husbands).

    With Catholics, their goal has gradually been to become more powerful. Their teachings that they are the "true" church, and that their leader (the Pope) is "infallible" is clearly meant to assert their dominance over other Christian sects. The power-mad Inquisition, who killed and tortured people who didn't believe in their ways, further proves this. Their goal to be the dominant version of Christianity has lead to the invention of doctrines that aren't in line with the Bible, and is the reason for disagreements on their end.

    Then there's the second group that I mentioned; those who are intelligent enough to see the archaic texts don't hold water in the modern world; hence, why some insist the Creation story isn't literal; because they realize they'd look foolish for accepting it as truth.

    Thus, disagreements from Christians largely come from either personal ambition or a refusal to trade common sense (like evolution) for mythology like creationism.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Mar '16 06:50
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I know many atheists were brought up in, or had exposure to, a Christian environment; what were you taught that these fundamentals were?
    In the Anglican church they repeat a form of the Nicene Creed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
    I think a polite Anglican might accept the right of a JW to call himself Christian, but would not consider him a 'fellow Christian' as in part of the same religion. The fundamental beliefs are too different for that. However, most Anglicans would be reasonably comfortable attending a Roman Catholic Church service.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Mar '16 06:55
    Originally posted by vivify
    During my time as a Christian, I have to agree that the bible isn't some hard to decipher text that can be interpreted many different ways. The bible is fairly straight-forward, meant to be taken literally as far its historical accounts (like the creation, flood, migration from Egypt, etc.).
    I disagree. When I was an Anglican I did not take the Genesis account literally and neither did most other Anglicans I knew, nor did we think it was meant to be taken literally. You have to give some sort of justification for why you think it should be taken literally.

    With Catholics, their goal has gradually been to become more powerful. Their teachings that they are the "true" church, and that their leader (the Pope) is "infallible" is clearly meant to assert their dominance over other Christian sects.
    You don't appear to realize just how old those teachings are.

    The power-mad Inquisition, who killed and tortured people who didn't believe in their ways, further proves this.
    The protestants at the time were little better.
  5. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    1974
    24 Mar '16 09:232 edits
    1. Inerrancy of the Bible.
    2. Literal truth of the Bible.
    3. The virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ.
    4. The doctrine of atonement through substitution, a Calvinist doctrinal innovation according to which Christ inserts his own perfect record, in place of ours, into the divine retributive mechanism.
    5. The bodily resurrection of Jesus and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ to rule the Earth.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism


    EDIT: I might point out a) that Fundamentalism (with a capital "F" ) is a historical phenomenon peculiar to American Protestantism. American Protestant churches convened in the early 1900s and set out the above list of fundamental tenets. And b) that mainstream Christian traditions hold Protestantism in all its forms (including American Fundamentalism) to be heretical. The mainstream Christian traditions are those which, by their own definition, adhere to the principle of Apostolic Succession (namely, Roman Catholicism and Greek/Russian Orthodoxy). Anglicanism claims to be mainstream, but Catholics and Orthodox hold Anglicanism to be heretical. And c) that Protestants hold the Pope and his Cardinals to be heretics. One big unhappy family.
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    24 Mar '16 11:33
    Originally posted by moonbus
    1. Inerrancy of the Bible.
    2. Literal truth of the Bible.
    3. The virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ.
    4. The doctrine of atonement through substitution, a Calvinist doctrinal innovation according to which Christ inserts his own perfect record, in place of ours, into the divine retributive mechanism.
    5. The bodily resurrection of Jesus and the immin ...[text shortened]... And c) that Protestants hold the Pope and his Cardinals to be heretics. One big unhappy family.
    So, "the devil's in the details"? 🙂
  7. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    24 Mar '16 12:01
    Originally posted by divegeester
    This was posted in another thread

    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"That isn't to say that all Christians agree about everything. Some aren't really Christians at all because they fail to believe God at His Word. They deny the basic fundamentals of the faith that God has revealed, and instead twist the scriptures to fit their own paradigm."
    ...[text shortened]... or had exposure to, a Christian environment; what were you taught that these fundamentals were?[/b]
    The following contains the answer:
    - Master what do I need to be saved ..
    - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this ...
    - The greatest of these [faith hope and charity] is ...
    - Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was ....

    Christ will call his righteous followers into his kingdom. The rest goes into eternal destruction.
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    24 Mar '16 13:491 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I disagree. When I was an Anglican I did not take the Genesis account literally and neither did most other Anglicans I knew, nor did we think it was meant to be taken literally. You have to give some sort of justification for why you think it should be taken literally.
    There's nothing in the bible that indicates Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. Also , think of Galileo: the Church clearly interpreted the bible literally, which resulted in their disputing heliocentric theory. The only reason the Anglican church may not have taken Genesis literally, is because they were established two hundred years after the debacle of Galileo's trial, with science firmly on his side by that point. Like I said, Christians refusing to trade common sense is one of the major reasons for biblical disputes.

    You don't appear to realize just how old those (Catholic) teachings are.
    Catholicism was founded around the time Christianity was had started spread quickly. The Romans wanted to dominate the world. It only makes sense that they wanted their version of Christianity to be the dominant one, doesn't it?

    The protestants at the time were little better.
    Christians as a whole were little better; but Catholics were clearly the worst.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Mar '16 13:591 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's nothing in the bible that indicates Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. Also , think of Galileo: the Church clearly interpreted the bible literally, which resulted in their disputing heliocentric theory. The only reason the Anglican church may not have taken Genesis literally, is because they were established two hundred years after the debacle of ...[text shortened]... tle better.
    Christians as a whole were little better; but Catholics were clearly the worst.[/b]
    There is nothing in scripture which claims that the Earth is the centre of the universe nor a single verse which would lead one to believe that it is so.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Mar '16 14:031 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's nothing in the bible that indicates Genesis shouldn't be taken literally.
    And there is nothing that indicates it should.

    Also , think of Galileo: the Church clearly interpreted the bible literally, which resulted in their disputing heliocentric theory.
    I strongly suspect you have your history all wrong. And if people of the time wanted the earth to be the centre of the universe, it wasn't because the Bible said so, it was because they had oversized egos. A common problem to this day.

    The only reason the Anglican church may not have taken Genesis literally, is because they were established two hundred years after the debacle of Galileo's trial, with science firmly on his side by that point.
    I disagree. I think there have always been Christians that have not taken it literally. I believe Jews are even less likely to take it literally.

    Like I said, Christians refusing to trade common sense is one of the major reasons for biblical disputes.
    The biggest historical disputes in Christianity were over the divinity of Christ, the trinity, and who is the head of the church. Conflict with science is actually a very recent phenomenon.

    Catholicism was founded around the time Christianity was had started spread quickly. The Romans wanted to dominate the world. It only makes sense that they wanted their version of Christianity to be the dominant one, doesn't it?
    As did every other sect of the time.

    Christians as a whole were little better; but Catholics were clearly the worst.
    Provide evidence because it is far from clear to me.
  11. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Mar '16 14:21
    Originally posted by divegeester
    This was posted in another thread

    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"That isn't to say that all Christians agree about everything. Some aren't really Christians at all because they fail to believe God at His Word. They deny the basic fundamentals of the faith that God has revealed, and instead twist the scriptures to fit their own paradigm."
    ...[text shortened]... or had exposure to, a Christian environment; what were you taught that these fundamentals were?[/b]
    What do you believe are the essential points of doctrine, or even one central belief, that if not believed means one is not a true believer?
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    24 Mar '16 15:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And there is nothing that indicates it should.
    It's well known that mankind created religion in order to explain the world; think Zeus and his lightning bolt, Apollo pulling the sun around the world on a chariot, etc. Christianity is no different.


    And if people of the time wanted the earth to be the centre of the universe, it wasn't because the Bible said so, it was because they had oversized egos.

    There's the story of of Joshua who commanded the sun to stop moving for a day, obviously indicating that the writers of the bible believed the sun moved around the earth. Also:

    Psalms 93:1
    "The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved."

    Clearly, they believed the earth doesn't move.


    I disagree. I think there have always been Christians that have not taken it literally. I believe Jews are even less likely to take it literally.

    Why else would people who already believe in a divine being whose son was born through a pregnant virgin, died and rose from the dead, then ascended into the sky to some some eternal paradise, not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? It has to be because of the prevalence of science.


    As did every other sect of the time.

    I don't think every sect was motivated by power, like the Romans were.

    Christians as a whole were little better; but Catholics were clearly the worst.
    Provide evidence because it is far from clear to me.

    The time of the Spanish Inquisition is arguably the most brutal time of oppression from Christians. Those behind the Inquisition were Catholic.
  13. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    24 Mar '16 15:15
    Originally posted by josephw
    What do you believe are the essential points of doctrine, or even one central belief, that if not believed means one is not a true believer?
    This is what I'm asking you. The statement in the OP is yours.
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    24 Mar '16 15:16
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    So, "the devil's in the details"? 🙂
    Would you like to respond to the OP?
  15. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    24 Mar '16 15:16
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    There is nothing in scripture which claims that the Earth is the centre of the universe nor a single verse which would lead one to believe that it is so.
    Would you like to respond to the OP?
Back to Top