What are Christians supposed to believe?

[elliotfc]

Well?

Note, the question isn't what you would have Christians believe.

The question is, given the declaration that one is a Christian, what expectiation do you have for the beliefs they should have?

-Elliot

 

[Jet Grind]

Christianity can means lots of things. There's no real way to give a univeral definition of the belief system.

 

[Brown]

The Apostles' Creed provides a pretty good summary of the basics, although in my judgment the Creed could eliminate several elements as being unnecessary to the faith, e.g., the Virgin birth, Jesus descending into hell, and belief in the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints.

 

[evildave]

Christians believe this hippy guy is really important somehow.

Beyond that, they're all over the board, and it's anybody's guess.

 

[triadboy]

They have to believe Jesus was god, that he died for our 'sins' and was resurrected ...or they're going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[calladus]

I knew of a christian church in Midland Texas with around one or two hundred members. They believed that they were the ONLY christians that would be saved. They tried like crazy to get my parents to join out of fear that mom and dad would perish.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Christians are Jews who belive that a man named Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Jesus said that he is God and that God is love.

The problem is that the God of the Old Testament is most certainly not a God of love. He is a God of cruetly, inconsistency and evil. He is puerile, jealous and vain. Very far from the beatific Christian idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being of pure love.

So why do Christians still hold on to the Old Testament, since it contradicts what Jesus says? Well, the truth is that without Genesis, whithout the serpent and man and the woman and the tree, without original sin, Jesus's whole raison d'etre promptly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Thats why Christians have to work so hard to ignore huge chunks of thier own Holy scriptures.

In short, Christians have to believe what they are told to/want to believe and pretend not to have read the bits they dont like.

Thats why the Christians faith is particularly pathetic.

 

[elliotfc]

Christians are Jews who belive that a man named Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Jesus said that he is God and that God is love.

The problem is that the God of the Old Testament is most certainly not a God of love. He is a God of cruetly, inconsistency and evil. He is puerile, jealous and vain. Very far from the beatific Christian idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being of pure love.

So why do Christians still hold on to the Old Testament, since it contradicts what Jesus says? Well, the truth is that without Genesis, whithout the serpent and man and the woman and the tree, without original sin, Jesus's whole raison d'etre promptly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Thats why Christians have to work so hard to ignore huge chunks of thier own Holy scriptures.

In short, Christians have to believe what they are told to/want to believe and pretend not to have read the bits they dont like.

Thats why the Christians faith is particularly pathetic.

Jon I actually sort of agree with everything you've said.

But don't you think that a religion can evolve?

And I think it can be successfully argued that without an understanding of the O.T., the N.T. doesn't make much sense.

For example, if you examine the history of science, you'll see the evolution of scientific belief. Now, would you have all the contradictions and the nonsense and various black skeletons in science's past stricken from the record?

Now this comparison does break down, since science is not (necessarily) presented in it's complete historical form. This just accentuates a primary difference between religion and science. With religion it is helpful to be reminded of how other people have thought. With science that doesn't do much good.

Of course a Christian could edit the Bible into something more palatable.

Atheists are just as good as pulling Bible quotes as fundamentalists. One of my fave Bible passages is Jeremiah chapter 31. I won't quote it in its entirety, but I'd like to believe that if anyone were to read it, they'd understand that without everything that came before it in the O.T., the chapter just wouldn't make much sense, but more importantly, it wouldn't touch the heart in nearly the right way.

In that way I don't ignore anything. And you, yourself, say that Christians are Jews. So why should Christians strike the Jewish scripture from their record?

Christians do not have to pretend that the problematic parts don't exist. They are there to demonstrate how the ideas of God developed over time. If you think that is pathetic, why such a negative attitude? People did not think like us thousands of years ago, what is so pathetic about that?

-Elliot

 

[Jon_in_london]

Jon I actually sort of agree with everything you've said.

But don't you think that a religion can evolve?

No. Religions are dogmatic. You have your holy scriptures, you stick to them. Otherwise you are just making it up as you go along, arent you?

And I think it can be successfully argued that without an understanding of the O.T., the N.T. doesn't make much sense.

No sense whatsoever, as I pointed out above, with the OT jesus becomes utterly pointless.

For example, if you examine the history of science, you'll see the evolution of scientific belief. Now, would you have all the contradictions and the nonsense and various black skeletons in science's past stricken from the record?

Now this comparison does break down, since science is not (necessarily) presented in it's complete historical form.

The comparison is false from the start because science isnt dogmatic

This just accentuates a primary difference between religion and science. With religion it is helpful to be reminded of how other people have thought. With science that doesn't do much good.

Nonsense.

Of course a Christian could edit the Bible into something more palatable.

All of them do.

Atheists are just as good as pulling Bible quotes as fundamentalists. One of my fave Bible passages is Jeremiah chapter 31. I won't quote it in its entirety, but I'd like to believe that if anyone were to read it, they'd understand that without everything that came before it in the O.T., the chapter just wouldn't make much sense, but more importantly, it wouldn't touch the heart in nearly the right way.

In that way I don't ignore anything. And you, yourself, say that Christians are Jews. So why should Christians strike the Jewish scripture from their record?

[/quote]
Christians do not have to pretend that the problematic parts don't exist. They are there to demonstrate how the ideas of God developed over time. If you think that is pathetic, why such a negative attitude? People did not think like us thousands of years ago, what is so pathetic about that?
[/quote]

Gods ideas develope? that means gods idea a while back werent very good? Its not God that has changed Elliot. Like you say, its people and peoples ideas that have changed, not God and Gods ideas.

 

[Cinorjer]

You know, of course, that Christians come in a whole variety of flavors, from liberal to fundamentalist. But, in a nutshell, I'd have to say the following:

Christians believe that the Jesus written about in the Bible is the Messiah, put on this world by God to atone for our collective sins. To that end, Jesus taught a few short years and then was crucified on the cross as the perfect sacrifice. Being the Messiah, Jesus rose from the dead to exhort his followers to spread the good news, then ascended to Heaven to be with God until the time of his second coming. By doing this, Jesus took our sins upon himself, and we can enter into Heaven only through his grace.

The devil is in the details. There are Christians who discount the virgin birth as tacked on, and have no problem with Jesus becoming the adopted son of God at the famous John the Baptist scene. Some Christians even think when Jesus rose from the dead, it was in spirit form, not his old body walking around like a zombie. And of course, exactly when that "second coming" will take place and in what form is always subject to debate.

 

[elliotfc]

No. Religions are dogmatic. You have your holy scriptures, you stick to them. Otherwise you are just making it up as you go along, arent you?

All I can say is that you are being extremely dogmatic when you say that religions are dogmatic.

If you can't conceive of a religion that understands their holy scriptures in a different way than you would have them understand them then I don't know what to say to you.

As for making it up as you go along, yes, I think that analogies can be constructed that evolve over time.

No sense whatsoever, as I pointed out above, with the OT jesus becomes utterly pointless.

No, the OT points to the redemption of Israel, and points to a time when the covenant promises will be fulfilled. All you have to do is follow the annotations in the N.T., trace them back to the O.T., and you'll see what I mean. I don't know how many books have been written about this topic. Here is my e-mail address:
elliotfc@optonline.net
I can send you 4 cassettes which will prove this. I'm not trying to get you to *believe* anything, but your position that "with the OT Jesus becomes utterly pointless" is absolutely untenable. If you don't want to hear informtion that will prove you wrong I can't force you to of course. We could start a thread devoted to this issue, and then it'll just be a matter of where to start.

The comparison is false from the start because science isnt dogmatic.

You say that with such dogmatic conviction. It's a shame that scientists would ruin people's careers and reputations for not holding to this scientific theory, or that scientific theory. When it comes to science being dogmatic, or not dogmatic, I can only judge her by the actions of her representatives.

Gods ideas develope? that means gods idea a while back werent very good? Its not God that has changed Elliot. Like you say, its people and peoples ideas that have changed, not God and Gods ideas.

When I said "the ideas of God" it was a typo, I meant to say "our ideas of God". I need to start proofreading my messages obviously.

-Elliot

 

[Crossbow]

Well?

Note, the question isn't what you would have Christians believe.

The question is, given the declaration that one is a Christian, what expectiation do you have for the beliefs they should have?

-Elliot

Not to sound wishy-washy, but that depends a good bit on which Christian you ask.

As far as I can tell, there are four major sects of Christianity:

1) Original - such as the Coptic and Aramaic Christians and is practiced in some sections of the modern Middle East and Turkey.
2) Greek Orthodox - widely practiced in the former 'Greek' or 'Eastern' half of the former Roman Empire after it was split.
3) Catholic - widely practiced in the former 'Latin' or 'Western' half of the former Roman Empire after it was split.
4) Protestant - formed by split in the Catholic sect that now have such large numbers they are their own sect.

And among these four major sects there are numerous sub-divisions and rivalries.

So again, it depends upon which Christian you ask.

 

[Gregor]

Elliot

Your attempts to evangelize this board through the distribution of audio cassettes demonstrate that your initial post is simply a Trojan Horse - if you'll allow me to borrow from another ancient near-east story that probably has some truth but is mostly myth.

I'd like every Xian to admit "my entire religion is simply my personal belief (without evidence) that a supreme being exists, coupled with my hope in the existence of Jesus and an afterlife (because I'm insecure about death), loosely based upon a few bits of the Bible that I like (which I'm afraid to critically examine because of the book's inconsistencies, history, errors, and other problems)."

"Lastly, I must admit that my religion is based upon my own insecurities and wilfully ignoring facts that might hurt my belief and hope."

I'd admire the Xian who admits these statements.

 

[Jon_in_london]

All I can say is that you are being extremely dogmatic when you say that religions are dogmatic.

If you can't conceive of a religion that understands their holy scriptures in a different way than you would have them understand them then I don't know what to say to you.

I can be dogmatic because Im right. Scriptures do not evolve any more than 'Pride and Prejudice' has evolved. Its still says exactly the same thing now as it did when it was written.

Im not talking obout differences in interpretation or understanding. When God says he creates evil, thats pretty much good enough for even an idiot to understand dont you think?
What YOU are talking about is cherry-picking the warm fuzzy bits while forgetting the bits that say how God is actually an evil, petty, vindictive ◊◊◊◊.

As for making it up as you go along, yes, I think that analogies can be constructed that evolve over time.

Im sure analogies can. Shame we arent talking about analogies isnt it?

No, the OT points to the redemption of Israel, and points to a time when the covenant promises will be fulfilled. All you have to do is follow the annotations in the N.T., trace them back to the O.T., and you'll see what I mean. I don't know how many books have been written about this topic. Here is my e-mail address:
elliotfc@optonline.net
I can send you 4 cassettes which will prove this. I'm not trying to get you to *believe* anything, but your position that "with the OT Jesus becomes utterly pointless" is absolutely untenable. If you don't want to hear informtion that will prove you wrong I can't force you to of course. We could start a thread devoted to this issue, and then it'll just be a matter of where to start.

I dont want your eamil address or your poxy cassettes. Its an absoloute fact that without original sin there wouldnt be any point in having a saviour would there!?

You are welcome to POST information on this forum that you think will prove me wrong but you would because it doesnt exist.

You say that with such dogmatic conviction. It's a shame that scientists would ruin people's careers and reputations for not holding to this scientific theory, or that scientific theory. When it comes to science being dogmatic, or not dogmatic, I can only judge her by the actions of her representatives.

You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want but if you profess the belief that grapefruits can be used a substitute for a kidney transplant, you better be able to back it up, otherwise people might think you are a bit of a t**t, dont you think? At least scientist dont go around torturing and burning people who disagree with them.

When I said "the ideas of God" it was a typo, I meant to say "our ideas of God". I need to start proofreading my messages obviously.

-Elliot

What you actually mean to say is that your ideas of God are straying from the Bible (the word of God), and in doing so, you are basically just making it up as you go along. Whats the point? Why not just invent some completely new religion all for yourself? Oh, sorry, you already have.

 

[elliotfc]

Elliot

Your attempts to evangelize this board through the distribution of audio cassettes demonstrate that your initial post is simply a Trojan Horse - if you'll allow me to borrow from another ancient near-east story that probably has some truth but is mostly myth.

Oh please. Think what you want. I said you had a stupid notion that the O.T. and Jesus are unrelated, or whatever the hell you said. Go ahead and raise the "evangelize" banner if you like. How about this. Just read your Bible from front to cover, and I'll keep the audiocassettes that directly contradict your stupid belief.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I'd like every Xian to admit "my entire religion is simply my personal belief (without evidence) that a supreme being exists, coupled with my hope in the existence of Jesus and an afterlife (because I'm insecure about death), loosely based upon a few bits of the Bible that I like (which I'm afraid to critically examine because of the book's inconsistencies, history, errors, and other problems)."

It is my personal belief, but it isn't simple, and it is influenced by I don't know how many things.

That a supreme being exists is a conclusion. I didn't start with the idea, I arrived at it, and you can blame that on my experiences and biases and notions, whatever.

I can't prove a supreme being exists in the way you want me to, since the supreme being is by definition supernatural.

Fixate on what you think my insecurities are, that says more about you than it does about me.

It's more than a few bits of the Bible that I like, and I am not afraid to critically examine the Bible's inconsistencies et al.

"Lastly, I must admit that my religion is based upon my own insecurities and wilfully ignoring facts that might hurt my belief and hope."

I'd admire the Xian who admits these statements.

I suppose every human being has insecurities, and we deal with them as best we can.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I can be dogmatic because Im right.

I admire your conviction.

Scriptures do not evolve any more than 'Pride and Prejudice' has evolved. Its still says exactly the same thing now as it did when it was written.

The way in which the persons in the Bible thought about God clearly evolved as Biblical time evolves. Pride and Prejudice encompasses characters who know each other over the course of a few months, if I'm remembering correctly.

Im not talking obout differences in interpretation or understanding. When God says he creates evil, thats pretty much good enough for even an idiot to understand dont you think?

That is what a biblical writer has God say. You are confusing God with the Bible I think. That doesn't make you an idiot. If you truly believe that every quotation in the Bible is actually what God said, that's up to you. I don't think that way. I find it interesting that people in the past had God speak in that way.

What YOU are talking about is cherry-picking the warm fuzzy bits while forgetting the bits that say how God is actually an evil, petty, vindictive ◊◊◊◊.

Why do you want to believe that I forget those things, since I don't? Do you believe in the existence of God? If not, why are you so hung up about the him being an "evil, petty, vindictive ◊◊◊◊?" If you truly believed in God, I would get how that would really bug you.

Im sure analogies can. Shame we arent talking about analogies isnt it?

What are we talking about exactly? Some people in the past had ideas about God. I find those ideas valuable, and you don't. I don't necessarily accept those ideas as I would accept the fact that my car has four wheels.

I dont want your eamil address or your poxy cassettes. Its an absoloute fact that without original sin there wouldnt be any point in having a saviour would there!?

I was just trying to be nice. Sorry.

Yes, without sin why should people need to be redeemed?

You are welcome to POST information on this forum that you think will prove me wrong but you would because it doesnt exist.

OK. The beginning of Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus through the Old Testament. Matthew 1:23 references Isaiah 7:14. That's chapter 1 of Matthew, the first chapter of the N.T.

If you told me that you had something which would totally prove an idea I had to be incorrect, and offerred it to me, I would appreciate you thinking about me, and take you up on that offer.

I'm sorry, I should keep in mind that people who I don't know personally might be offended by an offer made in good faith.

It will never happen again. If you are a charitable person, please just understand that I was only trying to be nice, and I won't make that mistake again.

You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want but if you profess the belief that grapefruits can be used a substitute for a kidney transplant, you better be able to back it up, otherwise people might think you are a bit of a t**t, dont you think? At least scientist dont go around torturing and burning people who disagree with them.

Where in the Bible does it say stuff about kidneys/grapefruits? You're not making things up now, are you?

I don't torture and burn people, I'm sorry you are stuck in the past. I don't blame you for how Stalin acted.

What you actually mean to say is that your ideas of God are straying from the Bible (the word of God),

Yes. The Bible is a human book written by humans, but it is about God and inspired by God. I do have different ideas about God than those in the Bible, but the Bible itself has different ideas about God so that doesn't bother me.

and in doing so, you are basically just making it up as you go along. Whats the point? Why not just invent some completely new religion all for yourself? Oh, sorry, you already have.

Well I am a Catholic, am a content Catholic, and haven't been excommunicated yet.

You seem to have your catchphrase in *making it up as you go along*. That's what we all do, isn't it? There is reality, whatever reality is. Darwin wrote a book. The book didn't change reality. We make things up as we go along, but there is always reality.

I don't think like I did 20 years ago, do you? Of course I'm guessing I'm probably a lot younger than you, I don't know.

-Elliot

 

[Fun2BFree]

I ....



(SNIP)...if I'm remembering correctly. (SNIP)



I don't think that way. I find it interesting that ...(SNIP)


(SNIP)...



I find those ideas valuable, and you don't. I don't necessarily accept those ideas as I would accept the fact that my car has four wheels.



I do have different ideas about God than those in the Bible...(SNIP)

Well I am a Catholic, am a content Catholic, and haven't been excommunicated yet.

You seem to have your catchphrase in *making it up as you go along*. That's what we all do, isn't it? There is reality, whatever reality is. Darwin wrote a book. The book didn't change reality. We make things up as we go along, but there is always reality.

I don't think like I did 20 years ago, do you? Of course I'm guessing I'm probably a lot younger than you, I don't know.

-Elliot

Like most believers it is all about I..I think, I believe...I I I I I....

Scientific thought is reflected in good scientific writing which is written without reference to the first person..."The evidence shows...etc."

It is about the evidence for which there is NONE to support what poor elliot has decided to believe for himself....Elliot's dismissal of Darwin and misunderstanding of the fundamental flaws in religious thought are typical of those who choose to re-order reality to fit their worldview...Darwin's book was a description of reality and a theory that would include all those real descriptions....

Prior experience with believers suggests elliot will not likely understand how flawed his I centered appoach is.

 

[elliotfc]

Like most believers it is all about I..I think, I believe...I I I I I....

Scientific thought is reflected in good scientific writing which is written without reference to the first person..."The evidence shows...etc."

Correct. Science expresses itself different than religion/philosophy.

I can only, when talking about religion/philosophy, say what I believe, or sometimes what others believe as well.

It is about the evidence for which there is NONE to support what poor elliot has decided to believe for himself....

It is about the evidence for which there is none to support...

What?

I'm just doing the best I can. I'd look at the abiogenesis evidence but there aren't things like specifics to look at.

Elliot's dismissal of Darwin

Hey now, I like Darwin, and so did Julia. I admire Darwin for his tenacity, he was on the right track, and I'm sure his 10,025th edition would have been better than his 10th.

and misunderstanding of the fundamental flaws in religious thought

It's a fundamentally different kind of thought than yours, in some ways. The name of this forum is "religion and philsophy". Are those two categories the same as, oh I don't know, science? Take the position that religion and philosophy are stupid, that's fine. If so, you are responding to stupidity I guess.

are typical of those who choose to re-order reality to fit their worldview...

Reality is what I see around me, not what happened that nobody has ever seen. I base what I believe on reality. If you were there at the first abiogenesitic moment, fill me in on the details, but I don't think that you were there.

Darwin's book was a description of reality and a theory that would include all those real descriptions....

It's a good book.

Prior experience with believers suggests elliot will not likely understand how flawed his I centered appoach is.

If that's what you believe...

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Correct. Science expresses itself different than religion/philosophy.

I can only, when talking about religion/philosophy, say what I believe, or sometimes what others believe as well.

..............................

-Elliot

The difference in talking about ' what others believe ' when it comes to science and religion, is that with the former, you can actually prove them wrong ( if they happen to be ), by conducting your own observations and experiments.

I believe this difference is significant.