How should a "Christian" deal with "heretics"?

[ToBeLoved]

I fear you don't get my point.

You are here telling me what I do and do not need to "believe" in order for you to consider me a Christian.
That's fine and dandy and your prerogative.

But I want to know what you would tell the other person, who also tells me what I do and do not need to believe in order to be considered a Christian.

Remember: I am an unbeliever. I have no more reasons to accept their word over yours, or vice verse.

But this person might give me some very good reasons to reject his claims, all of his claims, and thus in addition your claims as well.

Do you simply not care about having your message distorted?

You should read the Nicene Creed. That is the things Christians agree on.

Arguing that we are divided by small differences doesn’t hold water because we all agree upon the Nicene Creed points.

Somehow you want to make a big deal out of differences that don’t divide us as all being Children of God.

That is flawed reasoning on the atheist behalf.

Why would or should we take seriously divisions you see on the outside looking in?

Atheists have no idea which arguments they should even hang their hat on, so to speak.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Okay.. so your wanting to argue or debate theological points of doctrine unrelated to the topic of the OP in this thread?

How do your questions tie into the thread topic of how Christians deal with heretics?

Because this is what I'm having a hard time understanding... what your asking specifically related to heresy, in a thread about heretics..

I have to go until this evening, but perhaps you can clarify your questions and show how it relates to the OP, that is likely where I'm having a difficult time with.

Your right. They need to stay on topic or start a new thread.

They are all over the place throwing pasta at the wall to see if anything sticks.

 

[cvanwey]

This is where you not understanding Biblical theology really falls short.

There is really nothing in the Bible that says one needs to believe in the ressurection to go to heaven. That statement on it's own is not a statement any Christian would ever use because we all know why the ressurection is important.

However, belief in the ressurection itself does not determine a Christian.

The ressurection is important because God is perfect and to dwell with God, we must also be perfect in the afterlife.

Jesus came to earth as God and man to atone for sin. And the ressurection is important because the Father ressurected Jesus. The Father ressurecting Jesus shows the Father ACCEPTED Jesus as the Messiah and the perfect atonement for sin.

Since as sinful people, we need perfect atonement for our sin, which is through Christ, the Father accepting Jesus atonement is important and that the Father raised Christ from the dead.

That is why the ressurection is importatant.

But your premise that what defines a Christian is belief in the ressurection is not correct.

What the premise should be or your argument ( I will help you even form it so you can argue it better) is whether Jesus was God and man and whether the Father raised Christ up in ressurection as the permanant atonement for sin.

That's the argument you should fight for if you want to hang your hat on something.

I find it very interesting that you assert what I know and don't know. You must know my background and education pretty well

I will start simply...

Could someone call themselves a Christian if they do not believe a resurrection happened? NO. So case closed really.

Could someone call themselves a Christian if they do not believe a flood happened? YES

The resurrection is the bases for everything you are preaching afterwards in your response

Furthermore, I'm fully aware that the Bible does not say you must believe that a flood happened to enter heaven. And this is why many don't... However, if the claim comes from the 'book of truth', then why didn't it happen? Furthermore, the fact you are using such a loophole - ('it doesn't tell me I have to believe that specific claim), demonstrates my point further. That many do not believe such a claim, because their discovery of their surrounding tells them it would be nonsensical to believe such a claim. And yet, they must retain belief in another event, from the very same 40 person authored, 66 chapter book, whom all claim inspiration from the very same monotheistic claimed authority.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I feel it's rude to avoid the entire post. Yes, you are not obligated to answer at all. Maybe you should have instead done that? To respond, and address absolutely nothing the post provides demonstrates avoidance. If you owe me nothing, don't respond

I stated from the get-go, that such a comparison IS possibly off topic.

Furthermore, I already know what you believe. You are labeled a Christian. My point actually ties back into the OP however.... The resurrection is the ONLY event in which someone whom labels themselves a Christian must own and believe. Everything else is up for grabs, with no apparent responsibility, obligation, or even consequences. So it remains quite convenient how belief in a resurrection seems universal, as opposed to something which can actually be investigated, like a human killing flood claim.

But thanks for your suggestions. However, since you are not the OP-er, or a moderator, I will continue accordingly. As I feel the observations actually do correlate back to the OP. I'm just using two large comparative examples to demonstrate the point.

Think what you like then.

If we are not in agreement that a flood is possible then we have no basis to discuss Bible theology because you hold to the position that the Bible is not truth and I hold to the position that it is.

I don’t debate atheists when there is not a common starting point because their is no agreement on the underlying or most important point.

Your mind is closed to theology until that point is valid to you.

So there is nothing to defend my faith from.

You have provided no proof that there was never a flood r that Noah did not exist.

So you have not proven it false

 

[ToBeLoved]

I find it very interesting that you assert what I know and don't know. You must know my background and education pretty well

I will start simply...

Could someone call themselves a Christian if they do not believe a resurrection happened? NO. So case closed really.

Could someone call themselves a Christian if they do not believe a flood happened? YES

The resurrection is the bases for everything you are preaching afterwards in your response

Furthermore, I'm fully aware that the Bible does not say you must believe that a flood happened to enter heaven. And this is why many don't... However, if the claim comes from the 'book of truth', then why didn't it happen? Furthermore, the fact you are using such a loophole - ('it doesn't tell me I have to believe that specific claim), demonstrates my point further. That many do not believe such a claim, because their discovery of their surrounding tells them it would be nonsensical to believe such a claim. And yet, they must retain belief in another event, from the very same 40 person authored, 66 chapter book, whom all claim inspiration from the very same monotheistic claimed authority.

Your background or education is not important. It has no bearing on whether the Bible is true or not.

The resurrection is one very important piece but it does not determine who is a Christian and who is not.

That was your argument. It is false.

Make a true argument and I will discuss it

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nope. If you read my response, you would see you are saying the exact same thing as I. Which is...

- You must believe in a resurrection for a chance to enter heaven.
- You are not required to believe in a flood claim to enter heaven.

So I asked if it is intellectually honest to continue believing in a flood claim, while using the same methodology, investigation, and logic, when evaluating both claims, and concluding one is false while one is true? Because quite frankly, the Bible asserts both events happened. So if one did not happen, who's to say the other did? And in this case, there exists nothing outside the Bible to actually study for regarding the claim Christians are obligated to continue believing (i.e. resurrection), if one wants to call themselves a Christian. The Bible is the claim. The external evidence for a flood claim does not correlate with such a claim. And a resurrection claim bares little/no external corroborated first hand accounts, (which is required to even begin to validate such a type of claim).



I understand, do you?

I asked my husband to read your post and tell me what you mean.

He thinks your saying that we either must believe the Bible is 100 percent true or 100 percent false and there is no middle ground...

Is this true? If so, my answer is:

We have to believe the Bible 100% but that doesn't mean you will understand it 100%.

You can have sincere belief, and still be sincerely wrong.

You can believe the Bible is "God breathed" and interpret the "world" which was flooded to be a localised area, i.e. such as the "known" world, instead of the entire earth as we know it today.

You can be saved, and believe the book of Jude to stand outside of canon even though it was made a part of canon.

There is the classical example of all the apocryphal books not being accepted by the protestants, but then the protestants were burned at the stake for heresy too. Although I don't know of any protestants who burned Catholics at the stake..

I guess when it comes to "heresy", it may be subjective and individual opinion reigns; like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder - so i can only answer for myself..

The Bible is true (my belief) but it's not all literal, and it's not all figurative. The differences come into play when we disagree on which parts are literal and which parts are figurative, and in some cases such as Catholicism, how large of a part tradition plays.

 

[Freodin]

You should read the Nicene Creed. That is the things Christians agree on.

Arguing that we are divided by small differences doesn’t hold water because we all agree upon the Nicene Creed points.

Somehow you want to make a big deal out of differences that don’t divide us as all being Children of God.

That is flawed reasoning on the atheist behalf.

Why would or should we take seriously divisions you see on the outside looking in?

Atheists have no idea which arguments they should even hang their hat on, so to speak.

I think you try to make it too easy for yourself.
You don't want to deal in front of others with your internal problems, with your disagreements, your inconsistencies. I can understand that.

But you fail to see that we notice anyway. And every time you let the liar in your ranks go off, because you are all big happy family united against those evil outsiders... you let them become the face of your group. Every time you are silent towards the crazies, the haters, the scam-artists, because they claim to agree with you on a list of points, you show the world that doctrine is more important to you that the truth.

To use Hazeliponi's carefree attitude... it isn't the influence of heretics over me that should worry you. They might annoy me, they might amuse me.
No, it is the uncaring attitude of the "sincere Christians" that only strengthen my disbelief.

 

[cvanwey]

Think what you like then.

If we are not in agreement that a flood is possible then we have no basis to discuss Bible theology because you hold to the position that the Bible is not truth and I hold to the position that it is.

I don’t debate atheists when there is not a common starting point because their is no agreement on the underlying or most important point.

Your mind is closed to theology until that point is valid to you.

So there is nothing to defend my faith from.

You have provided no proof that there was never a flood r that Noah did not exist.

So you have not proven it false

By default, a claimed human killing flood, commanded by God, did not happen. Just like any other positive claim in existence. The book makes the claim, the evidence and discovery does not correlate. So please point me to the sources which substantiate this specific claim, or instead admit you are appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible.

To even state, 'You have provided no proof that there was never a flood r that Noah did not exist.' appears catastrophically incorrect. Again, by default, it did not happen. How might someone prove it did not happen, when by default, nothing happens? The onus is on the claim. Not the one one stating the evidence is lacking to support a very specific assertion.

Furthermore, I never even insinuated that Noah never existed. But I do state the presented findings do not point to a human killing flood, as asserted from such said ancient book. In this case, the Holy Bible.

***********

I also find it odd that you do not have discussions with people whom do not share the same starting point. I asked you many responses ago. Tell me what specific sources substantiate a flood claim. You have yet to provide any. Again, remember, the Bible is the claim. It does not also perform double-duty in the claim/evidence. The evidence exists outside any such claim. To do otherwise is circular.

And to state,' my mind is closed', is pretty presumptuous. Which is par for the course, because you have also claimed that 'atheists' know less about the Bible than Christians, which is further ironical, as I'm not an atheist, I'm a skeptic. It is also ironical because you do not know what other people know.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think you try to make it too easy for yourself.
You don't want to deal in front of others with your internal problems, with your disagreements, your inconsistencies. I can understand that.

But you fail to see that we notice anyway. And every time you let the liar in your ranks go off, because you are all big happy family united against those evil outsiders... you let them become the face of your group. Every time you are silent towards the crazies, the haters, the scam-artists, because they claim to agree with you on a list of points, you show the world that doctrine is more important to you that the truth.

To use Hazeliponi's carefree attitude... it isn't the influence of heretics over me that should worry you. They might annoy me, they might amuse me.
No, it is the uncaring attitude of the "sincere Christians" that only strengthen my disbelief.

Your assumption that I run from my beliefs is in great error. As a matter of fact, go look at some of the threads I post on and you will see me looking at the Hebrew and Greek and studying scripture for 30 years of my life.

I am Sola Scriptura which should be the easiest for you to attack. I study the Bible in depth. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter.

So no, you cannot attack any of my beliefs that I have not already dealt with many many times.

See the problem is your use to dealing with Christian s who you can make your simplistic arguments to and they sway them. But I’ve been studying the Bible for 38 years and been in this forum debating theology for 4 years.

So their is not an argument that is valid that I haven’t already dealt with.

Atheists hate that they cannot peck at my faith or theology because I’ve been studying it for most of my life.

I’ve already answered much harder questions than any you’ve presented.

I’m not scared to examine my faith like threading a needle.

Come up with a valid theological argument and I’ll bite.

But it has to be valid.

 

[ToBeLoved]

By default, a claimed human killing flood, commanded by God, did not happen. Just like any other positive claim in existence. The book makes the claim, the evidence and discovery does not correlate. So please point me to the sources which substantiate this specific claim, or instead admit you are appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible.

To even state, 'You have provided no proof that there was never a flood r that Noah did not exist.' appears catastrophically incorrect. Again, by default, it did not happen. How might someone prove it did not happen, when by default, nothing happens? The onus is on the claim. Not the one one stating the evidence is lacking to support a very specific assertion.

Furthermore, I never even insinuated that Noah never existed. But I do state the presented findings do not point to a human killing flood, as asserted from such said ancient book. In this case, the Holy Bible.

***********

I also find it odd that you do not have discussions with people whom do not share the same starting point. I asked you many responses ago. Tell me what specific sources substantiate a flood claim. You have yet to provide any. Again, remember, the Bible is the claim. It does not also perform double-duty in the claim/evidence. The evidence exists outside any such claim. To do otherwise is circular.

And to state,' my mind is closed', is pretty presumptuous. Which is par for the course, because you have also claimed that 'atheists' know less about the Bible than Christians, which is further ironical, as I'm not an atheist, I'm a skeptic. It is also ironical because you do not know what other people know.

Apologetics is defense of the faith.

But you have not made any valid point. Up your game and make a valid point

 

[cvanwey]

I asked my husband to read your post and tell me what you mean.

He thinks your saying that we either must believe the Bible is 100 percent true or 100 percent false and there is no middle ground...

Is this true? If so, my answer is:

We have to believe the Bible 100% but that doesn't mean you will understand it 100%.

You can have sincere belief, and still be sincerely wrong.

You can believe the Bible is "God breathed" and interpret the "world" which was flooded to be a localised area, i.e. such as the "known" world, instead of the entire earth as we know it today.

You can be saved, and believe the book of Jude to stand outside of canon even though it was made a part of canon.

There is the classical example of all the apocryphal books not being accepted by the protestants, but then the protestants were burned at the stake for heresy too. Although I don't know of any protestants who burned Catholics at the stake..

I guess when it comes to "heresy", it may be subjective and individual opinion reigns; like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder - so i can only answer for myself..

The Bible is true (my belief) but it's not all literal, and it's not all figurative. The differences come into play when we disagree on which parts are literal and which parts are figurative, and in some cases such as Catholicism, how large of a part tradition plays.

I appreciate your honest candor.

The book asserts both rather large events. I'm not comparing the foundation of Christianity (i.e. resurrection), to something as erroneous as say... How the Bible may or may not be correct about the number of legs on a grasshopper.

So no, I'm not even saying it's ALL OR NOTHING really....

I'm saying to not accept the flood claim, but to retain the resurrection claim, appears to present a level of heresy, dissent, dissension, infighting, which appear widely inconsistent.

Because what this states to me, is that such a human uses their own inferences, senses, and reasoning, to actually investigate if the said claim is possibly true. And if the Bible did not specifically assert that the Bible is 'all provided by God', then it could be dismissed, and I would not raise the topic. However, since we appear to have clear messages in the Bible, stating to the contrary, the Bible appears to shoot itself in the foot really.

In conclusion, to believe the resurrection, but to reject the flood claim, appears widely inconsistent, if being intellectually honest with the way such an individual evaluates claims.

Thoughts?

 

[cvanwey]

Apologetics is defense of the faith.

But you have not made any valid point. Up your game and make a valid point

Have you actually read my posts in this thread? It appears not.

Hint, there appears to be a rather large cognitive dissonance to retain belief in a resurrection, while rejecting the flood claim.

 

[Freodin]

Your assumption that I run from my beliefs is in great error. As a matter of fact, go look at some of the threads I post on and you will see me looking at the Hebrew and Greek and studying scripture for 30 years of my life.

I am Sola Scriptura which should be the easiest for you to attack. I study the Bible in depth. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter.

So no, you cannot attack any of my beliefs that I have not already dealt with many many times.

See the problem is your use to dealing with Christian s who you can make your simplistic arguments to and they sway them. But I’ve been studying the Bible for 38 years and been in this forum debating theology for 4 years.

So their is not an argument that is valid that I haven’t already dealt with.

Atheists hate that they cannot peck at my faith or theology because I’ve been studying it for most of my life.

I’ve already answered much harder questions than any you’ve presented.

I’m not scared to examine my faith like threading a needle.

Come up with a valid theological argument and I’ll bite.

But it has to be valid.

I am not attacking your faith. I am not attacking your theology.

All I am asking is that use your vast theological knowledge, go over to the thread that I pointed out and try to tell this guy that his weird chronology of the Bible is as wrong theologically as it is scientifically.

Is that too much to ask for a person with your experience?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Have you actually read my posts in this thread? It appears not.

Hint, there appears to be a rather large cognitive dissonance to retain belief in a resurrection, while rejecting the flood claim.

When I’m so desperate as to take advice from an atheist about my beliefs in God I’ll send you a PM.

Don’t hold your breath though. Unless you want to, then feel free.

 

[cvanwey]

When I’m so desperate as to take advice from an atheist about my beliefs in God I’ll send you a PM.

Don’t hold your breath though. Unless you want to, then feel free.

You continue to make many false accusations, on many levels.

If you do not reconcile there appears a cognitive dissonance to reject a flood claim, while retaining another claimed supernatural event, when the book claims both are true, then there really is no hope moving forward in THIS conversation.

Furthermore, it would not matter if I believed in Zeus, Thor, Allah, or the tooth fairy.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Have you actually read my posts in this thread? It appears not.

Hint, there appears to be a rather large cognitive dissonance to retain belief in a resurrection, while rejecting the flood claim.

Because you have made no valid claim that I need to defend my faith from.

Get out your Bible and make a valid Biblical claim.

I can’t help if you want to talk physical science. Show me that it is proven geographically that there has never been a flood.

Right. You can’t.

Your not challenging the Bible. Go get out your Bible.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You continue to make many false accusations, on many levels.

If you do not reconcile there appears a cognitive dissonance to reject a flood claim, while retaining another claimed supernatural event, when the book claims both are true, then there really is no hope moving forward in THIS conversation.

Furthermore, it would not matter if I believed in Zeus, Thor, Allah, or the tooth fairy.

Well our conversation is over.

You have no proof or valid point. PLease go address other posters now.

Your just talking in circles.

May God bless you with His wisdom

 

[ToBeLoved]

Honestly, atheists on this thread are not very good.

 

[cvanwey]

Well our conversation is over.

You have no proof or valid point. PLease go address other posters now.

Of course it is, because you refuse to even acknowledge my very last point

 

[Hazelelponi]

@Freodin To use Hazeliponi's carefree attitude... it isn't the influence of heretics over me that should worry you. They might annoy me, they might amuse me.
No, it is the uncaring attitude of the "sincere Christians" that only strengthen my disbelief.

How do you define "carefree" and "uncaring" anyway?

I'm here, speaking to you. Taking time to read posts to someone else instead of leaving the house and getting on with my day because it bothers me that I couldn't understand the line of questions and wanted to give the best possible answer in order to help you.. that to me is caring...

Do you desire that Christians put you on the rack until you "believe" in Christ ?

Or don't you think it's more kind, compassionate and caring to do our best to answer your questions and allow you the freedom to make your own decisions, taking the time to pray that God helps both my speech and your understanding...

We may have different interpretations of what it means to care.. I care enough not to force you, while doing my best to speak to you about my faith.

You asked me to explain my belief, not twist your arm. Any amount of arm-twisting, or silencing heretics ends in behavior that doesn't represent God..