OK...
Forgive me for defending the idea that Christians are not idiots. I was unaware that you enjoyed atheists claiming to be more knowledgeable about Christianity than Christians.
I don't expect anything (unless of course Zeus was the man in charge) of the sort. seekingChrist/razeontherock made a positive assertion, to which I asked for clarification, as he has demonstrated that defining terms in any meaningful way is difficult for him.
His assertion that those who reject Jesus may not burn in hell is at odds with traditional Christian doctrine, to which he feigns surprise when others make this assertion. His unwillingness to use accepted definitions and inability to provide his own definitions are contemptible. From what I can gather, his personal views on religion and faith have been so drastically changed from traditional doctrine to the point that it only makes sense to him to keep his head copasetic and his cognitive dissonance to a minimum.
And yet you are 100% wrong: my independently arrived at conclusions of doctrinal matters match up with Orthodoxy. Of all flavors. Sorry to dissappoint you.
Yes, it's called confirmation bias.
Very well. Start from the OED, and expand on it. What do you have that others do not have?
Thanks! I am glad you posted a link showing that white evangelicals are more knowledgable on the Bible & Christ than atheists.
But at the end of the day I base my chuckle fest at the common, arrogant perspective that atheists know more about Christianity at the very concept of how Christianity is attacked by them.
Well that isn't a very fair idea... it says I'm not allowed to be upset about something unless I make sure the issue has NEVER been covered before by anyone... that's not reasonable. It is also not reasonable to conclude that an attempt to address the same complaint must have been done efficiently, removing any legitimate reason for the complaint to be sustained. There have been ad nausem stupid explanations for the problems some religions pose and plenty of argumentum ad populum to support that stupidity.The overwhelming majority of attacks are done so with seemingly utter disregard for the fact that these topics have been covered at length and getting worked up about such is essentially irrational.
This is a loaded question Sister, and therefore not at all fair. Faith is common; not as in the usual usage of that word either, but shared amongst the many members of the Church with no one being excluded from it. I'm quite sure you know this very well yourself, so you'll understand I'm confused by your approach here. You can see people have done their best to vex me lately, so I'll be making no attempt to address something like this anytime soon.
If you care to take a different approach? You're normally a lovely person.
It is not possible to match all doctrines of orthodoxy of all faiths, for the simple reason that not all faiths agree with one another.
Here are just a few examples to start with:
What is your view on the filioque, for example?
Leavened altar breads? Yes or no?
The date of Easter; Julian or Gregorian?
Transubstantiation? Yes or no?
Infant baptism?
Modern charismatic manifestations?
The question was not loaded, it reflected what you said yourself. You said the OED was dry and insufficient for you. So what else would you add to it?
You have claimed that standard definitions are not sufficient for believers
It is not a difficult question; if you can identify something lacking, then you must know what that something is.
And this is one of the reasons I am losing interest in Christianity very quickly.
Obviously. I'll entertain this:
Clearly divisive. Do we really know enough to advise God on the subject? How did the Church ever survive not knowing this particular detail, for 1000 years? (Excuse the sarcasm, but I hope you see my point that this is not at all Salvific, and therefore a silly point of contention)
Is Jesus leavened or no? The question doesn't even make sense, does it? Surely you know as well as I do that both representations have their own meaning, and I personally see no way (or reason) to invalidate either. Traditions don't have to be bad, and of all traditions these are THE most beautiful, IMHO. Going a step beyond what you asked, I make no claim to be able to solve all mysteries, and the mystery of Holy Communion and what exactly takes place is not within my grasp. Sometimes we get glimmers of revelation, sometimes it can blow our wig off, but never does it add up to the fulness of God's intention, nor can we contain anywhere near all of what He has revealed to the Church already at any one given time. Usually when it comes time to actually do anything, all of that is inaccessible to us anyway, and we have to just walk by faith.
I'm torn whether this was ever a valid issue or not. By nature I probably would have been a quartodecemian had I been alive at the time, and some Church leaders were adamant about it, and it was certainly a harbinger of schism to come as I'm sure you know. Yet other ECF's said it simply didn't matter and unity was more important. (And here maybe I'm addressing completely the wrong term?If so, forgive me)
Either way in my lifetime and for 100's of years before our arrival such thing is of NO import. IMHO. Celebrate with your home Church. I'd be content with people looking for meaning beyond colored eggs and jelly beans, and am fortunate to have a home Church where this is the case - among EVERYONE
Unity is a grand thing
I got ahead of you above
I was Baptized as an infant. Looking back I cannot strongly take the stand that it was not efficacious, but as a young man I did feel the need to get Baptized as my Faith was meaningful to me for the first time. And THAT did indeed make a HUGE difference! I cannot say God did not honor it.
So I also see this as unnecessary division, and a non issue really.
Your inclusion of the word "modern" tells me you mean something specific I am not privy to. Eastern Orthodoxy claims more miracles than any other branch, and has the only predictable miracles anyone can witness, every year. So I hope you'll see my point that there's nothing "modern" about this in any sense I'm aware of. Even abuses of these gifts are ancient, as I'm sure you also know from Scripture.
At the same time some people are not at all comfortable with such things or even discussing them, and as a high Anglican (also my upbringing and baptism) you may very likely be in that number. I see no need nor reason to impose any of this on anyone, and indeed every reason NOT to. I am certainly Blessed to be able to experience God in quiet subdued corporate worship such as is your custom, in loud boisterous congregations, and all alone in snow covered wilderness that is a Cathedral to beat ANY stained glass windows
I should never take that for granted, have failed that, and am not ashamed to ask for your own prayers on that very matter.
This reads as quite a different question from my side of the screen. We cannot, or rather I cannot come away from Scripture without the understanding that Faith is never independent of action. Your cited dictionary definition makes no account of this that I can see. I also feel no inadequacy due to my inability to plumb the depths of this mystery in a nice concise catchy phrase. I see the story of Abraham being the Father of faith as quite lengthy and involved, and a good many devout Christians never fully comprehending even that much. They manage to follow Jesus anyway, and some in this category do so amazingly well! It serves as a (necessary) reminder to me that our own understanding does NOT save us, and such people are a very important part of our Body.
Hebrews 11 comes along and maybe sorta tries to paraphrase and condense the "definition" provided in the story of Abraham, but it surely does not exclude action, and while it is a wonderful highlight does not yield the richness of said story.
Ultimately the only valid definition for faith I can give credence to is the lives of individual believers. We are all different and you and I certainly attest to that fact! While we have the same faith, each is unique. All are precious to God, of that much I am convinced.
Now you're asking me to boil that down?Not my role in the Body, I'd rather see it expand.
And I do think this fits perfectly with the unbeliever. How can they know Christian Faith until they begin experiencing it for themselves? And when they do, it starts out small, and will only grow if cultivated. Therefore anyone else's definition will necessarily be foreign to them, and very likely misleading to them. And yet discussing specific elements within the faith is thoroughly possible, and some of them can even be readily defined. Perhaps a few of them even by me?
I have done no such thing. I tend to speak for myself. Anyone who wants to
take a modern dictionary definition for a highly complex Christian concept like "faith" for example, and reduce their conception of it to what is stated on the paper has that right. I merely point out that no aspect of my own conception of faith is modern in any sense, but can be found attested to throughout the ages, right back to Father Abraham. Who's Son I am, and who's inheritance I share
Recently you posted about God Himself, whether in this thread or not I'm not sure. Your own statement there contradicts your assertion here, and is rather more in line with what I am driving at. Some things are so large that they defy our ability to describe. We can know of more than has been explained, w/o necessarily being able to verbalize it. This is pretty basic to Spiritual life.
So you are neither for nor against filioque? Which means you are NOT 100% in line with either the West or the East.
Another actual decision. Child baptism is valid, according to you. That is perfectly fine with me, but that means you are not in line with many modern evangelical and Baptist churches on this matter.
So that is a yes on miracles, a no on modern charisms?
Faith is what the dictionary says it is; a belief in something.
It does not matter that your faith is not exactly the same as mine, or mine the same as the next person's. What matters is that when using language I mean something by the term that other people can understand of themselves when they use it.
We cannot say to those who are not Christians that faith is a different thing for us than it is for them. It isn't. the difference is only who or what we have faith in.
In this way they do indeed experience our faith for themselves. And we can either behave in such a way that they want to find out more, or we can convince them that they are perfectly right in having nothing to do with us or our Lord.
Faith is not a highly complex Christian concept. That is just silly. Everyone has faith in something, and therefore anyone can understand what the term means, both for themselves and for others.
If we cannot explain something we can at least explain that we cannot explain it. We do not have to pretend to have a language that is above and beyond human language.
It means it is a matter of no or little import. Most in the East will say the same, and that Unity would have been preferable to schism over this. Also, neither the East nor the West is 100% in line with itself, as I'm sure you can know, by a perusing of this website if nothing else.
So you may pick at nits, but that's all you're doing with these items. I independently arrived at the same theological positions they did, and God is certainly more than large enough to house them all, to be represented by them all. Earthly language is imperfect to address the substance of it anyway.
I don't see how any of those can be considered orthodox, and yet none of those ranks object to my stance on the matter. You seem to be fabricating distinctions where there are none.
How can you be at the same theological position, when you agree with neither of them? Earthly language is perfectly capable of saying yes or no to this one proposition. You claimed to agree 100% with everyone, but you can't do that when there are very clear divisions between denominations.
I am not fabricating anything. I am using actual distinctions between denominations to illustrate the patent impossibility of anyone on earth agreeing 100% with every denomination.
I think you are either unaware of these incompatible elements or else are choosing to ignore them.
and that is exactly what the poll concluded to be true. The poll also concluded that out of seven different types of Christians, only 2 of those 7 types even know their own set of beliefs better than atheists and agnostics. It said that out of 12 bible specific questions the the best at answering were Mormons with 7.9 questions correct, the next were white evangelical protestants with 7.3 questions correct and the next were atheists and agnostics 6.9 (less than a single question difference) none of the other 5 types of Christians got above 5.9 correct and concerning religion in general Atheists and Agnostics easily won compared to the evangelicals.Most atheists know 'substantially more than your average theist?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?