Freethought & Rationalism Archive

svensky · 03-03-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Actually you can't possibly know that because in fact I'm not sure. I ask questions rather than make definitive statements - since I'm not sure. I would rather you stuck with what I write than make assertions about what I do or don't believe.

Well it was an inference from a bunch of stuff you've said actually. But fair enough, I appologise.

Jason

Grizzly · 03-03-2002, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:

Is this the same grizzly from ILJ ?

It's me.

Quote:

Well there is no question what so ever in my mind that christian scientists should not be counted as christians. Dig a bit your self, you will soon understand why.

Normally the way it works is that someone with the assertion provides the evidence. Besides, I want to know why YOU don't consider them to be Christian. I can't look that up on the Web.

However, I decided to do a search on CS's. I found a statement of their beliefs.

Quote:

"1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.

4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure."

Well, they certainly sound Christian to me. They acknowledge the Bible, the Trinity, and Jesus as the way to salvation. What's not christian about that?

Quote:

As for a simply and relativly broad if inaccurate litmus test.

Do they hold the bible exclusivly as the word of God, with no additional sources of revelation.

Jason - does the bible state that it is the sole source of revelation and that no other sources would be forthcoming? I don't remember reading a passage at the end of the bible that said "I am done speaking with you people. Now read my book and shut up".

So I must ask, how do you know that the Bible is it? The bible is comprised of numerous authors over a few thousand years. What makes you so certain that it is finished? Is God done speaking to us through revelation?

But the bottom line is that these people worship Christ and believe in the Bible. They may stress certain parts of the bible over others, but what Christian group doesn't.

Quote:

<snip>

Is this a good enough litmus test ?

Jason

Actually, your litmus test sounds more like a definition of fundamentalism than Christianity.

Cheers

Grizzly

03-03-2002, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:

It would actually be a good test, and I think at least genreally it would included or exclude the right groups.

Jason

Hello Jason, I have a similar test and am convinced that only Catholics (and Jews) can get to heaven

HelenM · 03-03-2002, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:

Well it was an inference from a bunch of stuff you've said actually. But fair enough, I appologise.

Jason

Thanks, Jason

love
Helen

svensky · 03-03-2002, 08:38 AM

Quote:

However, I decided to do a search on CS's. I found a statement of their beliefs.

Hmmm ... these guys are getting as shifty as the mormons.

Quote:

Jason - does the bible state that it is the sole source of revelation and that no other sources would be forthcoming? I don't remember reading a passage at the end of the bible that said "I am done speaking with you people. Now read my book and shut up".

Not quite like that. But yes it is strongly implied.

Quote:

So I must ask, how do you know that the Bible is it? The bible is comprised of numerous authors over a few thousand years. What makes you so certain that it is finished? Is God done speaking to us through revelation?

This sort, yes I think so. If christs work is a finishing atoning sacrifice, why does God need to send prophets to update us ? Once for all is a pretty final sort of revelation I think.

Quote:

But the bottom line is that these people worship Christ and believe in the Bible. They may stress certain parts of the bible over others, but what Christian group doesn't.

I would disagree that the groups are christian. I would suggest that they all teach salvation by works, rather than by faith.

Would this perhaps be a better test ?

Jason

hezekiah jones · 03-03-2002, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
I would disagree that the groups are christian. I would suggest that they all teach salvation by works, rather than by faith.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches likewise, with respect to works. Faith is assumed in all the various Christian cults - a blinding glimpse of the bleedin' obvious.

Given their emphasis on works versus faith, are Catholics therefore not Christians either?

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-03-2002, 09:11 AM

Attempting to define "True Christianity" is an exercise in futility. At best, one can offer only an arbitrary personal definition, but there is no compelling reason to accept one person's definition over another. I have no reason to accept svensky's definition (for instance) as authoritative and objectively true.

If one chooses to define "True Christianity" as those beliefs held by all people who self-identify as christian, the term appears to lose all meaning.

At best, one can objectively define "True Christianity" only as the common beliefs among a predominance (e.g. ~80%) of those who self-identify as "christians". Even then, one's definition will still be somewhat sensitive to the particular individuals one chooses to constitude a predominance.

Lone Wolf · 03-03-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
Different denominations to a lesser or greater degree is simply different approaches to the same thing.
In case you've never noticed, christians across denominations have a core of beliefs in common and the sort of things they disagree over are often trival, or at least not as important as some people seem to think.

Certianly, how much water to dunk people in for baptism is one of those.

Take, for example, the differences between Calvanist and Catholic. You see these as trivial? Yes, they have the same generic place they're trying to get to, but how they get there are two completely seperate paths. Each may say the other is on the incorrect path.

As for being literal, the question is - you have your particular literal interpretation. Another Christian will have his. Any one of millions of others will have theirs. All will insist theirs is the correct one. Why is yours the correct one, or does being literal allow for some percentage of error?

HelenM · 03-03-2002, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:
Take, for example, the differences between Calvanist and Catholic. You see these as trivial? Yes, they have the same generic place they're trying to get to, but how they get there are two completely seperate paths. Each may say the other is on the incorrect path.

...and if 'being on the incorrect path' means 'hell-bound' then that certainly isn't trivial.

And Calvinists would say Catholics who really believe their church teachings are hell-bound; and there was a time, I think, when Catholics would say the same of Calvinists, although I think Pope John Paul II may have moderated the Catholic position on 'other faiths' - but still, Calvinism would be presumably regarded as 'another faith' to a true Roman Catholic...

love
Helen

Ales · 03-03-2002, 02:04 PM

I saw in the discussed article in the part about the theology of Church of Christ a mention "musical instruments prohibited by the Scripture". Are they prohibited in general or only during the worship? Human stupidity has no boundaries.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2002, 09:11 AM	#17
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	Attempting to define "True Christianity" is an exercise in futility. At best, one can offer only an arbitrary personal definition, but there is no compelling reason to accept one person's definition over another. I have no reason to accept svensky's definition (for instance) as authoritative and objectively true. If one chooses to define "True Christianity" as those beliefs held by all people who self-identify as christian, the term appears to lose all meaning. At best, one can objectively define "True Christianity" only as the common beliefs among a predominance (e.g. ~80%) of those who self-identify as "christians". Even then, one's definition will still be somewhat sensitive to the particular individuals one chooses to constitude a predominance.

03-03-2002, 02:04 PM	#20
Ales Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 226	I saw in the discussed article in the part about the theology of Church of Christ a mention "musical instruments prohibited by the Scripture". Are they prohibited in general or only during the worship? Human stupidity has no boundaries.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.