Ask God for Me

[Silmarien]

I said nothing about Muslim or Hindu beliefs. I said people who call themselves Christians. If someone asked me to describe my mom and I said she is a tall, Asian lady with a quick temper and my sister describer her as a short white lady that is slow to anger how would someone know what she is really like? We can both call her our mother but others will not really know what she is like. Just like Christians, they describe a different aspects of a God so for non believers it is hard to know what Christians believe about who god is.

Have you tried the Nicene Creed?

Seriously, I'm not impressed. I was once a non-believer, and it wasn't at all hard to track down information on the history of Christian doctrine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Have you tried the Nicene Creed?

Seriously, I'm not impressed. I was once a non-believer, and it wasn't at all hard to track down information on the history of Christian doctrine.

I am so glad Silmarien that you joined the Christian family!

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's funny! I don't feel all that confused by the ongoing developments of thought in the Christian Church (i.e. 1st Century / Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican / Various Protestants) for the last 2,000 years.
....Granted, I'm dazed a little by it all, but not confused !!

No dazed AND confused for you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

To some small to moderate extent, you're correct. But then, if we place the locus of the problem within the bounds of the issue of whether or not any one group adheres to the basic Trinitarian conceptions that are historically embedded in the last 2,000 years of Christian history, well then...............your assertion does an amazing flop after attempting a triple-somersault back-flip, landing squarely upon its keister.

This is all the more reason WHY I hold to an ever ongoing ecumenical stance among ALL TRADITIONALLY ORIENTED TRINITARIAN Christians. And I dare anyone to attempt to dismantle my whole stance. Good luck to 'ya, you're going to need a heck of a lot of it, tooooooooooooooooooo!

To a large extent I am correct. So much so that there have been many bloody wars fought over these so called small differences. Some Christians are shocked when they find that most Christians do not agree with them. For example most do not read Genesis literally at all. That is mostly a U.S. error. I do not need to dismantle your whole stance, I only need to show that you are wrong and that there are significant differences.

 

[Silmarien]

To a large extent I am correct. So much so that there have been many bloody wars fought over these so called small differences. Some Christians are shocked when they find that most Christians do not agree with them. For example most do not read Genesis literally at all. That is mostly a U.S. error. I do not need to dismantle your whole stance, I only need to show that you are wrong and that there are significant differences.

When I was exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, I discovered that there was significant leeway over issues like this: one was permitted to read Genesis literally, but one was not required to do so. Christianity has always been like this: in the early Church, the school at Antioch was strictly literalist, whereas the school at Alexandria was wildly allegorical. They were not separate sects--there was some tension, certainly, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever flipped out and declared an approach at biblical interpretation to be heretical.

I don't think it's valid to point to this as an example of the type of "small differences" that caused wars, because it didn't. The ancient churches permit both views. Honestly, the sort of stuff that caused wars was primarily political in nature, not theological. We're talking huge power struggles when it comes to things like the Reformation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To a large extent I am correct. So much so that there have been many bloody wars fought over these so called small differences. Some Christians are shocked when they find that most Christians do not agree with them. For example most do not read Genesis literally at all. That is mostly a U.S. error. I do not need to dismantle your whole stance, I only need to show that you are wrong and that there are significant differences.

Like I said to Clizby, some take Genesis literally and others don't but the foundation of the church is Jesus who died for our sins and rose again. Simple.

 

[Kylie]

when one has the same FOUNDATION, one has THE TRUTH...and they are told not to ¨go out¨ from THE FOUNDATION...if they do not ¨go out¨...they are fine...

1 john 2 and 2 john 1 (read together)

Sounds like that's just telling believers not to pay any attention to the inconsistencies.

 

[Kylie]

No, I am sorry...in this you can not explain how having the same FOUNDATION doesn´t make something the TRUTH...because in this having the same FOUNDATION is having THE TRUTH...

Then how would you deal with the situation I presented in post 1119? Here it is again for you:

I mean, two people could say, "Kylie went to the shops today," and they'd have the foundation the same. But if one said that she went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, and the other person said she went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, would you believe them? Of course not. The foundation of their claims - Kylie went to the shops today - may be the same, but the details are inconsistent, and you'd quite rightly think that something fishy was going on. They can't both be right, so one of them has to be wrong. But which one? You can't tell. And maybe both of them are wrong!

So tell me, in that, the foundation is the same, right?

 

[coffee4u]

Then how would you deal with the situation I presented in post 1119? Here it is again for you:

I mean, two people could say, "Kylie went to the shops today," and they'd have the foundation the same. But if one said that she went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, and the other person said she went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, would you believe them? Of course not. The foundation of their claims - Kylie went to the shops today - may be the same, but the details are inconsistent, and you'd quite rightly think that something fishy was going on. They can't both be right, so one of them has to be wrong. But which one? You can't tell. And maybe both of them are wrong!

So tell me, in that, the foundation is the same, right?

The foundation in your example is that both people went shopping. Your example above is a good one of denominational differences. The foundation of Christianity is Christ. Both fully human and fully God. Crucified, buried and raised again. All Christians believe in this. Those who don't still have some kind of religion but it isn't Christianity.
You could change those shops to doctrines such as baptism, literal Genesis, women wearing a head covering. All of us who are Christian on this thread could differ in any one of those topics/doctrines, even in every single one, but we would still recognize each other as Christian if we share the basic foundation of Christ.

 

[Kylie]

The foundation in your example is that both people went shopping.

You don't seem to have read it very well.

The example is two people saying what I did. They both say that I went to the shops, so their foundation is the same. But the rest of the details are contradictory.

Your example above is a good one of denominational differences. The foundation of Christianity is Christ. Both fully human and fully God. Crucified, buried and raised again. All Christians believe in this. Those who don't still have some kind of religion but it isn't Christianity.
You could change those shops to doctrines such as baptism, literal Genesis, women wearing a head covering. All of us who are Christian on this thread could differ in any one of those topics/doctrines, even in every single one, but we would still recognize each other as Christian if we share the basic foundation of Christ.

But since each person said something different about which shops I went to, wouldn't you think that at least one of them had it wrong?

 

[Silmarien]

But since each person said something different about which shops I went to, wouldn't you think that at least one of them had it wrong?

What exactly are you trying to establish? That if one person says that Genesis is a literal account and if someone else says that it is allegorical, they can't both be correct? I would think that self-evident.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said to Clizby, some take Genesis literally and others don't but the foundation of the church is Jesus who died for our sins and rose again. Simple.

That is the basis for Christianity, but the differences between sects is still great enough that people will kill members of other sects on sight in the past. You may deny the differences but then you would need to explain the bad actions of countless Christians over the millennia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, I discovered that there was significant leeway over issues like this: one was permitted to read Genesis literally, but one was not required to do so. Christianity has always been like this: in the early Church, the school at Antioch was strictly literalist, whereas the school at Alexandria was wildly allegorical. They were not separate sects--there was some tension, certainly, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever flipped out and declared an approach at biblical interpretation to be heretical.

I don't think it's valid to point to this as an example of the type of "small differences" that caused wars, because it didn't. The ancient churches permit both views. Honestly, the sort of stuff that caused wars was primarily political in nature, not theological. We're talking huge power struggles when it comes to things like the Reformation.

Politics was part of it, but the politics were based upon differences in Christian beliefs.

 

[coffee4u]

But since each person said something different about which shops I went to, wouldn't you think that at least one of them had it wrong?

I already said we (Christians) disagree on these matters, but those matters are not the foundation.

I don't know all of what Silmarien or anyone else above me believes over all matters of Christian doctrine, but that doesn't matter if you are talking about who is a Christian or not. She can be Anglican and I can be non-demnomitional but go to a variety of churches, but if we share the same foundation we are still Christian, despite our differences.

We are all just fallible people, we are not God, only God is infallable.

 

[Silmarien]

Politics was part of it, but the politics were based upon differences in Christian beliefs.

Eh... not really. The dispute between Charles V and the various Germanic lords was primarily about advancing princely power against the Holy Roman Empire. I'm sure that there was some genuine theological sympathy for Martin Luther in there, but the political issue wasn't really based on theology. It was based on the balance of power and the old game of nobles versus monarchs. Local interests too, when you're dealing with something relatively decentralized like the Holy Roman Empire.

Theological differences became a really big deal afterwards, but I think the main problem was identity, politics, and in-group/out-group dynamics. None of what happened sprung up solely because of minor differences in beliefs. (Granted, rejecting the papacy is not minor. Rejecting the papacy is huge, and also extremely political.)

 

[Kylie]

What exactly are you trying to establish? That if one person says that Genesis is a literal account and if someone else says that it is allegorical, they can't both be correct? I would think that self-evident.

Not quite.

I'm saying that if two people agree on the broad strokes of an idea, but each claims the details are different to what the other person believes, then one or both of them is wrong. It also means that we can't conclude that the foundation they both agree on is correct.

 

[Kylie]

I already said we (Christians) disagree on these matters, but those matters are not the foundation.

I don't know all of what Silmarien or anyone else above me believes over all matters of Christian doctrine, but that doesn't matter if you are talking about who is a Christian or not. She can be Anglican and I can be non-demnomitional but go to a variety of churches, but if we share the same foundation we are still Christian, despite our differences.

We are all just fallible people, we are not God, only God is infallable.

That wasn't my point.

My point was when I see the two of you telling me things that are different in the details, I have to conclude that one of you, perhaps both, is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To a large extent I am correct. So much so that there have been many bloody wars fought over these so called small differences. Some Christians are shocked when they find that most Christians do not agree with them. For example most do not read Genesis literally at all. That is mostly a U.S. error. I do not need to dismantle your whole stance, I only need to show that you are wrong and that there are significant differences.

And exactly what all have you studied and read on this matter? Care to list out a bib for us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And exactly what all have you studied and read on this matter? Care to list out a bib for us?

I could post up endless articles on Christian wars. Here is a rather low level war, it was the most recent one:

The Troubles - Wikipedia

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the basis for Christianity, but the differences between sects is still great enough that people will kill members of other sects on sight in the past. You may deny the differences but then you would need to explain the bad actions of countless Christians over the millennia.

What are you referring to?