| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2010 10:51:53 AM · #5151 |
I understand your position Clive. Thanks for the reply. One reality of the world is that people will disagree on things that are important to each individual and this will bring conflict. That is inescapable, but how one deals with the conflict is probably more important than the conflict itself. I do not see loving someone and disagreeing with them on some important, fundamental level as mutually exclusive. Unfortunately there are memebers of my faith (ie. Westboro) that seem to think they are. Their actions probably pain me more than anything that has been brought up in this thread.
I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 10:54:18 AM · #5152 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Why exactly does a line need to be drawn? If the religion offers teachings of love and equality, and as one of its adherents, you believe that your religion is right and true, why must a line be drawn between your religion and another? Why must the other guy necessarily be wrong? I feel bad for my Mom, who does indeed see herself as Christian but the more conservative Christians among you do not. Sad, really.
I really do have a problem with this, and I do understand that since I do not see it from the other side, I will never truly understand, so I guess this is a moot post. I'll go ahead and just Yanko myself now, thanks. |
The line needs to be drawn because if it isn't, then sometime in the near future nobody will be able to clearly define what Christianity is. If huge numbers of people go around calling themselves Christians without believing in the divinity or the resurrection of Christ, then people will begin to get the idea that Christianity is just about love and such. If you lose some of those core beliefs (like the divinity and resurrection of Christ) then you lose the religion all together, because it is those core beliefs that separate Christianity from all other major religions. This is the reason why there are so many different denominations in Christianity today. We've become to lenient in what we consider Christianity to the point that anyone who likes love and throws the name of Jesus around once in a while is a Christian. Just by reading the rant forum here at DPC you can see that there are plenty of people who confused about Christianity and have no idea what orthodox Christianity really is. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 11:30:33 AM · #5153 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Why exactly does a line need to be drawn? If the religion offers teachings of love and equality, and as one of its adherents, you believe that your religion is right and true, why must a line be drawn between your religion and another? Why must the other guy necessarily be wrong? I feel bad for my Mom, who does indeed see herself as Christian but the more conservative Christians among you do not. Sad, really.
I really do have a problem with this, and I do understand that since I do not see it from the other side, I will never truly understand, so I guess this is a moot post. I'll go ahead and just Yanko myself now, thanks. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The line needs to be drawn because if it isn't, then sometime in the near future nobody will be able to clearly define what Christianity is. If huge numbers of people go around calling themselves Christians without believing in the divinity or the resurrection of Christ, then people will begin to get the idea that Christianity is just about love and such. If you lose some of those core beliefs (like the divinity and resurrection of Christ) then you lose the religion all together, because it is those core beliefs that separate Christianity from all other major religions. This is the reason why there are so many different denominations in Christianity today. We've become to lenient in what we consider Christianity to the point that anyone who likes love and throws the name of Jesus around once in a while is a Christian. Just by reading the rant forum here at DPC you can see that there are plenty of people who confused about Christianity and have no idea what orthodox Christianity really is. |
Okay.....who gets to determine which are the inalienable, and correct points of Christianity?
And what are the odds that the various denominations would be accepting of this "Official" stance? Granted, it's unfair to lump you and Jason in the same group as the Westboro freaks, but how are those of us on the outside supposed to be able to tell which Christians are the "correct" ones?
It would seem to me that no line whatsoever needs to be drawn, and that it would make sense to determine someone's faith based on how they live according to their love of their fellow man, and how they adhere to their beliefs. But then that would be the description of a good, religious person, and the Christian faith certainly doesn't corner the market on that, now does it?
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 11:31:05.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2010 11:36:07 AM · #5154 |
The good news with your question Jeb is there is a long, long history. Two thousand years to be exact. Certain themes emerge as having been held throughout that history. So you don't need to designate someone as the "keeper of Orthodoxy", instead you can judge for yourself from historical precedent.
I don't think the list of orthodox beliefs is very long in Johnny's mind. It's not in mine at least. There are lots of things Christians are free to have a differing opinion on. It seem like churches split over the color of the carpet sometimes. But there are a few things that are non-negotiable and Johnny is correct to point this out.
Find the old creeds. They were written for exactly the purpose you seek. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 11:44:39 AM · #5155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The good news with your question Jeb is there is a long, long history. Two thousand years to be exact. Certain themes emerge as having been held throughout that history. So you don't need to designate someone as the "keeper of Orthodoxy", instead you can judge for yourself from historical precedent.
I don't think the list of orthodox beliefs is very long in Johnny's mind. It's not in mine at least. There are lots of things Christians are free to have a differing opinion on. It seem like churches split over the color of the carpet sometimes. But there are a few things that are non-negotiable and Johnny is correct to point this out.
Find the old creeds. They were written for exactly the purpose you seek. |
Some of the questions that arise for someone such as myself come from the confusion as to what stands the test of time....and what doesn't, like the parts about slavery, and the subject that we've discussed elsewhere like how the woman obeying her husband is to be interpreted. I really don't have the background, or to a certain extent, the time and interest to make a serious study of the faith, and its "God/guidebook" that I may intelligently view those of your faith that I may better know who to believe. It'd be so much better if there were "Christian Officials" hanging around with their blazers & lapel pins so that us, the uneducated, could get a ruling on what's right, and what's out there.....8~)
|
|
|
|
11/04/2010 11:58:01 AM · #5156 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The good news with your question Jeb is there is a long, long history. Two thousand years to be exact. Certain themes emerge as having been held throughout that history. So you don't need to designate someone as the "keeper of Orthodoxy", instead you can judge for yourself from historical precedent.
I don't think the list of orthodox beliefs is very long in Johnny's mind. It's not in mine at least. There are lots of things Christians are free to have a differing opinion on. It seem like churches split over the color of the carpet sometimes. But there are a few things that are non-negotiable and Johnny is correct to point this out.
Find the old creeds. They were written for exactly the purpose you seek. |
Some of the questions that arise for someone such as myself come from the confusion as to what stands the test of time....and what doesn't, like the parts about slavery, and the subject that we've discussed elsewhere like how the woman obeying her husband is to be interpreted. I really don't have the background, or to a certain extent, the time and interest to make a serious study of the faith, and its "God/guidebook" that I may intelligently view those of your faith that I may better know who to believe. It'd be so much better if there were "Christian Officials" hanging around with their blazers & lapel pins so that us, the uneducated, could get a ruling on what's right, and what's out there.....8~) |
Well, Jeb, I'm your huckleberry... :P |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 12:14:29 PM · #5157 |
If you want a basic gloss on fundamental Christian beliefs, the core beliefs that comprise "being Christian", you could do worse than the Apostle's Creed. There have been numerous variants over the centuries, but they are all very similar; here's a Lutheran version:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Basically, failing to believe in any of the above about Christ (He was conceived by God, born of a virgin, crucified, buried, resurrected, sits at God's right hand, etc) means you can't call yourself a Christian. Resurrection and everlasting life after death are also key. Some sects have more particular beliefs, but as far as I know they all agree on the above. It's not that complicated, in the broad sense; it's just when the sects start bickering amongst themselves over the details that it gets messy.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 12:14:40. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 12:17:11 PM · #5158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, Jeb, I'm your huckleberry... :P |
I hadda look that up! LOL!!!
From urbandictionary.com: 19th century slang which was popularized more recently by the movie Tombstone. Means "I'm the man you're looking for". Nowdays it's usually used as a response to a threat or challenge, as in the movie.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2010 12:35:11 PM · #5159 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But there are a few things that are non-negotiable and Johnny is correct to point this out.
Find the old creeds. They were written for exactly the purpose you seek. |
There is the nub of the issue (IMHO) what parts are the old creed. Given the history of the written word, what part is the hand of God and what the hand of man?
Islam has it easy. Mohamed wrote the Quran in a fever dream, written by a single author in a few days, and faithfully copied and chanted in a single language ever since. There is some argument over interpretation, but none to authorship.
The New Testament had a much trickier path, written by several authors, moving through several languages, from a largely oral tradition through several hundred years, and then hand copied with marginalia that may or may not have crept into the testaments. Looking at Elain Pagles work with the Gnostic Gospels especially the Gospel of Judas where it is sometimes at odds with the King John that I hear people quote and dissect as if....as if it were gospel.
Then there is the question of which parts of the Old Testament get brought forward to be on equal footing with Christ's words, and which have been supplanted by the new teachings. It is all rather complex to see which particular bits of the Testaments get highlighted and put on signs at rallies, and which get waved off as not being relevant anymore.
Where the line is that goes beyond the pale and gets you labeled a non-Christian is harder for me to see.
PS Edit to say Robert gives a pretty good baseline
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 12:38:49. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 01:18:34 PM · #5160 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But there are a few things that are non-negotiable and Johnny is correct to point this out.
Find the old creeds. They were written for exactly the purpose you seek. |
There is the nub of the issue (IMHO) what parts are the old creed. Given the history of the written word, what part is the hand of God and what the hand of man?
Islam has it easy. Mohamed wrote the Quran in a fever dream, written by a single author in a few days, and faithfully copied and chanted in a single language ever since. There is some argument over interpretation, but none to authorship.
The New Testament had a much trickier path, written by several authors, moving through several languages, from a largely oral tradition through several hundred years, and then hand copied with marginalia that may or may not have crept into the testaments. Looking at Elain Pagles work with the Gnostic Gospels especially the Gospel of Judas where it is sometimes at odds with the King John that I hear people quote and dissect as if....as if it were gospel.
Then there is the question of which parts of the Old Testament get brought forward to be on equal footing with Christ's words, and which have been supplanted by the new teachings. It is all rather complex to see which particular bits of the Testaments get highlighted and put on signs at rallies, and which get waved off as not being relevant anymore.
Where the line is that goes beyond the pale and gets you labeled a non-Christian is harder for me to see.
PS Edit to say Robert gives a pretty good baseline |
I think you are making it more complicated than it need be. I wasn't claiming creeds are inspired words of God. I'm saying they are recitations put together by church leaders to help people understand "what is important" and to keep cohesion in what would become a very culturally diverse group of people. If someone asks, "what makes a Christian?" it's a good place to start because they have existed from nearly the beginning and have changed very little over time.
But, again, we are only speaking of the "core" of Christianity. Opinions on social issues of the day probably inspire much more varied responses.
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 13:20:57. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 01:45:30 PM · #5161 |
Sorry, my bad. Derailing this thread was not my intent. There's another thread somewhere which is more appropriate.
Message edited by author 2010-11-05 21:33:45. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 05:12:34 PM · #5162 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Just by reading the rant forum here at DPC you can see that there are plenty of people who confused about Christianity and have no idea what orthodox Christianity really is. |
Gee Johnny, viewed in that perspective I guess the only true Christians are the Catholics huh?
Just asking,
Ray |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 05:27:04 PM · #5163 |
Actually looks like going with the Assyrian Church is the best way to stay Orthodox, they are the oldest existing branch of Christianity. Roman Catholicism Split out after the Great Schism in the 11th century.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2010 05:56:00 PM · #5164 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Actually looks like going with the Assyrian Church is the best way to stay Orthodox, they are the oldest existing branch of Christianity. Roman Catholicism Split out after the Great Schism in the 11th century. |
The question is, what was the Assyrian Church before they broke off? |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 06:15:56 PM · #5165 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Actually looks like going with the Assyrian Church is the best way to stay Orthodox, they are the oldest existing branch of Christianity. Roman Catholicism Split out after the Great Schism in the 11th century. |
The question is, what was the Assyrian Church before they broke off? |
The schism was about whether or not Mary could properly be called "Mother of God", if I'm not mistaken. The Nestorians believed that was wrong, but in the First Council Ephesus their views were rejected and anathematized. The followers of Nestor split from mainstream Christianity at this point, relocated to Persia, affiliated with a sect called "Church of the East" and, eventually, became known as The Assyrian Church of the East.
They are a very small sect, currently ruled from Chicago, of all places. They do NOT represent an early, mainstream Christianity, but rather one of the first, big schisms where "believers" who rejected some part of orthodox doctrine split from the main body of the church.
R. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 10:45:53 PM · #5166 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Just by reading the rant forum here at DPC you can see that there are plenty of people who confused about Christianity and have no idea what orthodox Christianity really is. |
Gee Johnny, viewed in that perspective I guess the only true Christians are the Catholics huh?
Just asking,
Ray |
I don't get it... |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 11:53:38 PM · #5167 |
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong.
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 23:55:10. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 02:06:19 AM · #5168 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong. |
The biblical teachings on homosexuality have been discussed more than once in this thread and, frankly, bringing them up again is not going to help keep this thread on topic. This thread has been derailed numerous times throughout the 5000+ posts already. Also, I don't think it's fair to continue torturing members of the DPC community that are sensitive to this topic by continually circling back to biblical views that they find offensive. There are more appropriate and less offensive ways to ask that question. I'm not trying to sound harsh or anything, and I'm sure you have good intentions clive, but I think this thread has beaten that dead horse enough already. If you still want your question answered you can google search biblical teachings on homosexuality, you can PM someone, or you can read through the last 206 pages of this thread. Again, I don't mean to sound harsh but if we go there this thread is going to end up way off track for the 32nd time. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 05:30:14 AM · #5169 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong. |
The biblical teachings on homosexuality have been discussed more than once in this thread and, frankly, bringing them up again is not going to help keep this thread on topic. This thread has been derailed numerous times throughout the 5000+ posts already. Also, I don't think it's fair to continue torturing members of the DPC community that are sensitive to this topic by continually circling back to biblical views that they find offensive. There are more appropriate and less offensive ways to ask that question. I'm not trying to sound harsh or anything, and I'm sure you have good intentions clive, but I think this thread has beaten that dead horse enough already. If you still want your question answered you can google search biblical teachings on homosexuality, you can PM someone, or you can read through the last 206 pages of this thread. Again, I don't mean to sound harsh but if we go there this thread is going to end up way off track for the 32nd time. |
That's fair enough Johnny. I was just thinking aloud really as it seemed pertinent to the current conversation (The Bishop guy being or not being a real Christian). Sorry to have offended you by bringing it up. I'll have a read back over this thread as you suggest. There is a lot of it though!
Message edited by author 2010-11-05 05:31:01. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 07:09:16 AM · #5170 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong. |
The biblical teachings on homosexuality have been discussed more than once in this thread and, frankly, bringing them up again is not going to help keep this thread on topic. This thread has been derailed numerous times throughout the 5000+ posts already. Also, I don't think it's fair to continue torturing members of the DPC community that are sensitive to this topic by continually circling back to biblical views that they find offensive. There are more appropriate and less offensive ways to ask that question. I'm not trying to sound harsh or anything, and I'm sure you have good intentions clive, but I think this thread has beaten that dead horse enough already. If you still want your question answered you can google search biblical teachings on homosexuality, you can PM someone, or you can read through the last 206 pages of this thread. Again, I don't mean to sound harsh but if we go there this thread is going to end up way off track for the 32nd time. |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
That's fair enough Johnny. I was just thinking aloud really as it seemed pertinent to the current conversation (The Bishop guy being or not being a real Christian). Sorry to have offended you by bringing it up. I'll have a read back over this thread as you suggest. There is a lot of it though! |
Actually, Clive, the bottom line on it is that there are those that operate on the premise that there belief system is unerring in principle, and despite misgivings, and logic, there's a certain adherence necessary in order to be of the faithful. You, or I, or that lady over there being gay is of no consequence to anyone other than the involved parties, and we know enough some 2000 years later to question the rationale and sensibilities of the Bible, and as to how it applies in the world we live in today. We eat pork, rye bread, and shellfish. we know slavery is wrong, and just ask most wives today who obeys whom.......
The faithful claim an institution that was around before they were as their own, ands won't have their "Sanctity of Marriage" sullied, and in other ways fundamentally interfere in the lives of people who were it not for them imposing their will upon them, would have no interaction whatsoever. If the church would not cross that line, and have it interfere in the dictates of society, we wouldn't have the problem.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2010 09:45:27 AM · #5171 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong. |
This should suffice for a strong start on understanding various views. Some are hard line and some are less so. After reading, you can make up your own mind. Most do.
"Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact."
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5
link 6 Wikipedia |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 01:25:35 PM · #5172 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
That's fair enough Johnny. I was just thinking aloud really as it seemed pertinent to the current conversation (The Bishop guy being or not being a real Christian). Sorry to have offended you by bringing it up. I'll have a read back over this thread as you suggest. There is a lot of it though! |
You didn't offend me. I'm just trying to be sensitive because I'm sure other DPC members have already been offended enough by this thread. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 01:31:43 PM · #5173 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
That's fair enough Johnny. I was just thinking aloud really as it seemed pertinent to the current conversation (The Bishop guy being or not being a real Christian). Sorry to have offended you by bringing it up. I'll have a read back over this thread as you suggest. There is a lot of it though! |
You didn't offend me. I'm just trying to be sensitive because I'm sure other DPC members have already been offended enough by this thread. |
So? They have the right to not read it :D |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 02:17:43 PM · #5174 |
The real question seems to be, can you practice homosexuality and be Christian at the same time?
Notice how I phrased that. I believe you can be Gay and Christian; it's a harder cross to carry.
If a person doesn't believe in the bible, there's no use quoting bible passages. We'll have to deal with natural law.
All in all, sounds like another thread (Christianity and Homosexuality). Then this thread can focus on it's title.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2010 03:17:39 PM · #5175 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The real question seems to be, can you practice homosexuality and be Christian at the same time?
Notice how I phrased that. I believe you can be Gay and Christian; it's a harder cross to carry.
If a person doesn't believe in the bible, there's no use quoting bible passages. We'll have to deal with natural law.
All in all, sounds like another thread (Christianity and Homosexuality). Then this thread can focus on it's title. |
If we consider the "core" beliefs to mark whether or not you are a Christian, the answer is obviously "yes" as the core beliefs have nothing to do with homosexuality. That's my take anyway. |
|
