Lets face it...

[TillICollapse]

I appreciate you sharing that with me. I also had never heard of Orthodoxy until shortly after I became Christian at 43 years old. But a member (deist) in this forum just started a new thread inviting people to ask him questions. I asked him who Jesus Christ was, and he answered that there is no such person, and I must be talking about Yeshua of Nazareth, and that was his full answer. See what I mean about being difficult?

You're welcome. And that's interesting it wasn't until you were 43 yo ... huh

And yes perhaps he was being difficult. ETA: I saw the post But it's not always the case. I'm not a noob, I know there are certain things which are likely safe to assume and certain things which aren't in dealing with certain types of people. But I stop myself short. Because when I assume and I turn out to be wrong .. I can be REALLY wrong. And plus, it's an injustice to the other person. It's not treating them with respect and fairness, if I'm trying to give them that. And it doesn't really encourage intellectual honesty. Things get missed, even if someone is being purposefully difficult, or troll-some, or everything suggests they are just being purposefully obtuse. You can pick and still get useful information and potentially learn something.

There was a comedian I saw on TV once when I was a kid, who said, "Every day I wake up in the morning, and I ask my wife how she takes her coffee. We've been married many years now, and every day she takes it the same way. She finally asked me, "Why do you ask me every day how I want to take my coffee ? I always tell you the same answer. Isn't it safe to assume and just make it ? Don't you know me by now ?" And I told her, "It's because I don't want to take you for granted."

 

[Chesterton]

It can make it confusing when you are trying to get to know a person who claims to be Christian, yet they are not going into detail about what that means to them

As Radagast said, the basics of Christianity are spelled out in the Nicence Creed, and probably in a thousand other writings. But there can be aspects of becoming Christian which may be deeply personal, sometimes ineffable, and atheists often will chalk up personal experiences to just being deluded by our own psychology, which is in effect basically calling us foolish, and some of us would rather not subject ourselves to that.

You're welcome. And that's interesting it wasn't until you were 43 yo ... huh

And yes perhaps he was being difficult. But it's not always the case. I'm not a noob, I know there are certain things which are likely safe to assume and certain things which aren't in dealing with certain types of people. But I stop myself short. Because when I assume and I turn out to be wrong .. I can be REALLY wrong. And plus, it's an injustice to the other person. It's not treating them with respect and fairness, if I'm trying to give them that. And it doesn't really encourage intellectual honesty. Things get missed, even if someone is being purposefully difficult, or troll-some, or everything suggests they are just being purposefully obtuse. You can pick and still get useful information and potentially learn something.

There was a comedian I saw on TV once when I was a kid, who said, "Every day I wake up in the morning, and I ask my wife how she takes her coffee. We've been married many years now, and every day she takes it the same way. She finally asked me, "Why do you ask me every day how I want to take my coffee ? I always tell you the same answer. Isn't it safe to assume and just make it ? Don't you know me by now ?" And I told her, "It's because I don't want to take you for granted."

Ha! There's truth to what you say, but this particular person I've interacted with before, and read his posts, and his Formal Debates, and I know "where he's coming from", but given the new rule changes about flaming and "addressing the poster" I'd probably better not say anything more.

 

[TillICollapse]

As Radagast said, the basics of Christianity are spelled out in the Nicence Creed, and probably in a thousand other writings. But there can be aspects of becoming Christian which may be deeply personal, sometimes ineffable, and atheists often will chalk up personal experiences to just being deluded by our own psychology, which is in effect basically calling us foolish, and some of us would rather not subject ourselves to that.



Ha! There's truth to what you say, but this particular person I've interacted with before, and read his posts, and his Formal Debates, and I know "where he's coming from", but given the new rule changes about flaming and "addressing the poster" I'd probably better not say anything more.

To each his own, I guess

 

[Radagast]

Here's an example of an honest question: the term "Orthodox" with a capital "O". I thought it was a term that only applied to those who adhere to the Eastern/Oriental schism groups

Generally speaking, yes (although the Eastern Orthodox would find the term "schism group" inappropriate and offensive), with "orthodox" (mostly, but not always, lower case) used as an adjective meaning "of correct belief." A number of Protestant groups have "Orthodox" in their name, e.g. Orthodox Presbyterian Church

The term "Christian" seems based on a set of goalposts that move for each person claiming the title, imo

Some individuals or small groups do radically move the goalposts. The vast majority leave them pretty much where they have always been. That's why C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is so popular -- Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox can all take it as a correct summary of the essentials of Christianity.

And concerning the icon use on CF ... there was a serious poster (I don't believe they were a troll) here not too long ago (I'm not going to point them out, I think that is rude) who used the icon yet rejected pretty much all the standard muster list of what it meant to use the icon.

That would have been against the rules. The purpose of the icons is to take away the need for extensive "what do you believe?" questions.

 

[Davian]

Holding no belief, and holding a position of disbelief are different.

Sure, but not so much on a practical level.

But if you're trying to say you have no belief, then why did you above say the atheists are right,

I believed it to be funny. Also, while atheism is not a truth statement, it certainly does comport with the available evidence for biblical variety deities.

and why always arguing the atheist position,

It is the only one I have ever known. It's not like I promote it.

and always mocking theism?

Not always. I am here to learn, and have done much of that. Take, for instance, the posts by TillICollapse; I am so new to this religious stuff, and I learn from the experience he and others bring to these discussions.

However, when someone hangs something ridiculous out there for comment, who am I not to oblige?

No need to guess; I display a Christian icon, and if you have no conception of the Christian God, as I told you before, you should probably read more. Especially about something you want to argue about on a Christian site.

I have been presented with many, many conceptions of the Christian God. Made the universe, is the universe, is a Boltzmann brain, makes everything work, holds everything together, or just set things up and let it go, being of little significance (almost deistic). A God that made the Earth 6000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, or 14 billion - or just made it look that way. Just helped with abiogenesis, made people out of a rib, or was responsible for every cell division ever. Global floods, local floods, no flood. Undetectable, or seen everywhere. Comports with virtually all of science, barring a few miracles (whatever they are), or most of mainstream science has to be wrong for their beliefs to be right.

I was just in a thread where I was alternately being hammered with "stop complaining about not having evidence that does not exist" (I wasn't) and "we have as much evidence as the other (scientific) side".

If I were motivated (and I am not) I would make a checklist, and present it prior to engaging a religionist in discussion, to get a rough idea where they stand. What can start off as a seemingly coherent discussion throws me when I am confronted with a "but the global flood would have..."

Or just keep playing dumb if you find that more entertaining.

"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be so outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid...." - from Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Well if you can't give me a definition of what you're asking for, how can I give it to you?

Asking for a definition of 'definition' may cause you to appear as being difficult. If you are having trouble with the concept of falsifiability, I can help you there.

 

[TillICollapse]

Generally speaking, yes (although the Eastern Orthodox would find the term "schism group" inappropriate and offensive), with "orthodox" (mostly, but not always, lower case) used as an adjective meaning "of correct belief." A number of Protestant groups have "Orthodox" in their name, e.g. Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Ah.

Some individuals or small groups do radically move the goalposts. The vast majority leave them pretty much where they have always been. That's why C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is so popular -- Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox can all take it as a correct summary of the essentials of Christianity.

And yet within even a group that claim to share common beliefs, there is great diversity from individual to individual, which is what I was pointing out concerning the use of clarifying at times.

That would have been against the rules. The purpose of the icons is to take away the need for extensive "what do you believe?" questions.

Yet the rules don't always work lol. Simple as that.

I get everything you're saying, but those generalizations don't always work out "on the ground". It would be nice if there was a uniform definition, but the reality says otherwise.

 

[Davian]

For purposes of this conversation I could have just said God is a being who created the universe

Did he 'speak it' out, Earth, then the rest of the universe? or did it happen in a manner that comports with inflationary theory?

and other beings like humans.

Was that from a rib, or through the use of processes as described by the scientific theory of evolution?

Davian knows that, everybody knows that, he just likes to be difficult, and likes always questioning, questioning, questioning, while evading answering questions put to himself.

lol. You just don't like being at the sticky end of the Socratic method.

 

[Davian]

No, a mortal being would not count.

What's interesting on second thought though, is that the assumption I make is that people being critical of an idea understand at least the basic idea. I could be wrong. I know of lot of atheist types on CF are very knowledgable about Christianity, but I guess I can't assume that about every one of them. What I take as being difficult may in fact sometimes just be innocent ignorance.

I am still a nOOb at all this. My only real exposure to religion is what I have experienced here on this site (searchable at your leisure). I was almost 40 before it occurred for me to consider caring about religion.

 

[Radagast]

And yet within even a group that claim to share common beliefs, there is great diversity from individual to individual

Well, not really. There is a lot of diversity on some of the details, but the vast majority of Christians have much more in common than they differ on. As a Protestant, for example, I would agree with about 95% of the statements in the Catholic Catechism.

Yet the rules don't always work lol.

I wouldn't know. People deliberately breaking the rules go straight onto my "ignore" list.

It would be nice if there was a uniform definition, but the reality says otherwise.

I would disagree with your interpretation of "reality."

 

[agua]

Radagast

I would disagree with your interpretation of "reality."

I think things would be simpler if we identified Christainity as "Biblical Christianity". It's an unfortunate caveat but has become necessary these days, I think.

 

[TillICollapse]

Not always. I am here to learn, and have done much of that. Take, for instance, the posts by TillICollapse; I am so new to this religious stuff, and I learn from the experience he and others bring to these discussions.

And I learn from yours. *Tip of the hat*

And I'm fully aware that I can share experiences that may even make Fox Mulder pull a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

 

[Radagast]

I think things would be simpler if we identified Christainity as "Biblical Christianity". It's an unfortunate caveat but has become necessary these days, I think.

But even those groups that downplay the Bible tend to hang on to things like the Nicene Creed.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well, not really. There is a lot of diversity on some of the details, but the vast majority of Christians have much more in common than they differ on. As a Protestant, for example, I would agree with about 95% of the statements in the Catholic Catechism.

I would disagree with your interpretation of "reality."

Are there reasonably exhaustive stats on what the majority of those whom identify as Christian believe and where they match and/or differ, etc ? If so I may be interested in perusing them if you can point me to them.

I think things would be simpler if we identified Christainity as "Biblical Christianity". It's an unfortunate caveat but has become necessary these days, I think.

Why would that make it simpler ? Which Bible ? Which translation ? Which canon ? Which interpretations ? Many of the denominations/etc appeal to their interpretation of what is "Biblical Christianity". I was introduced to Oneness Pentecostalism just today and they apparently claim Sola Scriptura (according to the Wiki). Do they sound like others who claim Sola Scriptura for example ? They apparently claim 24 million adherents, and reject the Nicene Creed for example. I don't see where appealing to the Bible would make that much of a difference. Yet another division imo.

 

[agua]

Why would that make it simpler ? Which Bible ? Which translation ? Which canon ? Which interpretations ? Many of the denominations/etc appeal to their interpretation of what is "Biblical Christianity". I was introduced to Oneness Pentecostalism just today and they apparently claim Sola Scriptura (according to the Wiki). Do they sound like others who claim Sola Scriptura for example ? They apparently claim 24 million adherents, and reject the Nicene Creed for example. I don't see where appealing to the Bible would make that much of a difference. Yet another division imo.

Unless we're being deliberately antagonistic the definition of the christian bible is simple because we a set of universally accepted 66 Books. The simplicity will come by establishing if people accept the Bible as authoritive.

 

[agua]

Are there reasonably exhaustive stats on what the majority of those whom identify as Christian believe and where they match and/or differ, etc ? If so I may be interested in perusing them if you can point me to them.

I think the Nicene Creed is accepted by the majoroty of Christians. The figures aren't exhaustive but we can trace the Church groups that accept the creed, and teach it.

 

[TillICollapse]

Unless we're being deliberately antagonistic the definition of the christian bible is simple because we a set of universally accepted 66 Books. The simplicity will come by establishing if people accept the Bible as authoritive.

I think the Nicene Creed is accepted by the majoroty of Christians. The figures aren't exhaustive but we can trace the Church groups that accept the creed, and teach it.

I'm not trying to be deliberately antagonistic ... I'm deliberately pointing out that it's not as cut and dry as you are making it.

The Bible: Book of Enoch in the canon ? Toss out Paul and everything he touched ? What about the early Church Fathers who quoted what are called the Jewish-Christian gospels, Shepard of Hermas, etc ? Book of Mormon good to go ? What about the Urantia Book ?

The *brand* of "Christianity" is one thing. The people who make up "Christianity" are another. The brand can have an image that attempts to claim all manner of things: uniformity amongst the majority, "We all generally believe such and such." McDonald's tells me I can have it my way. Miller Light supposedly tastes great and is less filling. Some people who work at the Apple store are called "geniuses". Where I used to work, they have a philosophy they attempt to teach to every employee, the employees have to sign forms acknowledging they've been trained and agree with it, etc. Politicians take oaths (I presume), members of the medical community often do, etc and so forth. There is the brand, the philosophy of an organization, and then the reality of what the people who actually constitute those organizations put out. They don't always add up. Not everyone who signs the form agrees with it. Not everyone who swears on oath tells the truth. I can't always have it my way at McD's. Not every organization is a carbon copy of each other. All of this goes without saying, and it applies to the average believer as well in my experience. I remember talking with someone not too long ago, who said they were a "Methodist". I probed a little deeper ... they said they didn't even really believe that Jesus rose from the dead. This isn't the exception to the rule in my experience. Digging a little deeper often brings such things to the surface.

Obviously there are going to be those who actually do attempt to believe what they claim to believe, and try to put forth a unified front. But saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. In my experience, the variety seems to be the rule, not uniformity. The uniformity would be the exception. Maybe in certain contexts or circumstance, but even if there IS a majority that can all parrot the same things, the minority appears to be large enough to be worth noting. It's not a single individual.

I'm not interested in going round and round forever though ... that seems to be what we are doing now at this point.

 

[Radagast]

Which translation ?

Mainstream translations don't differ all that much, actually.

Which canon ?

There's no disagreement on the N.T. canon. For the O.T. there is disagreement on the so-called "deuterocanonical" books, but for most purposes they make no difference.

I was introduced to Oneness Pentecostalism just today

They are a relatively recent group, outside of orthodox Christianity. I would think "24 million adherents" would be a significant overestimate. Here on CF Oneness Pentecostals have a special (unorthodox) icon.

I must say that I've found it difficult to pin down exactly what the Oneness Pentecostals believe, because much of their doctrine is oral rather than written. The UPCI, possibly the largest Oneness group, says "The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons. Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to complete humanity." That wording suggests to me that they are not so much rejecting the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as misunderstanding it.

 

[TillICollapse]

Mainstream translations don't differ all that much, actually.

Perhaps mainstreams do not, idk ... but this doesn't take away from the KJV only, for example. I still see this mentioned.

There's no disagreement on the N.T. canon. For the O.T. there is disagreement on the so-called "deuterocanonical" books, but for most purposes they make no difference.

I don't know how common it is, but I've known of the "Paul was a false apostle" argument for awhile now. It seems more common than I had first thought when I heard it (like 15 years ago, from my friend who had just converted to Eastern Orthodox actually ... he was toying with the idea Paul should be ignored). So there is disagreement on whether Paul's writings should have authority. I've also seen the "Parts of the Gospels actually belong to the OT, the NT starts in their last two chapters," etc. Not to mention the books I've already mentioned above ... Urantia Book, Book of Mormon, etc.

They are a relatively recent group, outside of orthodox Christianity. I would think "24 million adherents" would be a significant overestimate. Here on CF Oneness Pentecostals have a special (unorthodox) icon.

I must say that I've found it difficult to pin down exactly what the Oneness Pentecostals believe, because much of their doctrine is oral rather than written. The UPCI, possibly the largest Oneness group, says "The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons. Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to complete humanity." That wording suggests to me that they are not so much rejecting the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as misunderstanding it.

I'm not that familiar with them, as I just learned of them. But it's just yet another case in point.

I'll repeat somewhat what I said to aqua ... the brand of the organization and what their statements and philosophy may attempt to proclaim are one thing ... those who make up the organization are another. The brands aren't necessarily in alignment which can easily be shown (even the large ones ... again Mormonism for example), and the adherents differ drastically as well.

I am getting ready to call it a night though And the convo does seem to be going in circles somewhat at this point anyway. I would be interested in stats though, that would be interesting to read. More than just Nicene Creed stats. We've only talked about Christianity thus far ... I haven't even mentioned the other varieites that don't even claim to be "Christian", yet still claim the God of Abraham ... which would only enlarge the circles I believe

 

[TillICollapse]

Actually here you go ... just saw this, from a Christian (icon !) ---

I'll state this flat out, there really is no single, unified "Christian religion", if you look at the beliefs of all those labelled as such. "Christian" is a term invented by outsiders originally to call those that followed Jesus. In reality, there are many different interpretations of what that means. "Christian" is like calling a Friend "Quaker".

In reality, Christians have described themselves as the "Holy Catholic Church", the "Orthodox Catholic Church" and so on. "

The context of his statement is interesting, if you want to read it.

With that ... gnite (hopefully).

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps mainstreams do not, idk ... but this doesn't take away from the KJV only, for example. I still see this mentioned.

I think the KJVO's are wrong, and I don't think the KJV is a great translation (it was once mainstream, but it's in archaic English, and is not based on the best Greek texts); but doctrinally it doesn't actually make much difference whether you use the KJV or a more recent mainstream translation.

I've known of the "Paul was a false apostle" argument for awhile now

It's well outside of historical orthodoxy. Every mainstream Christian group accepts Paul's writings as Scripture. The "Paul was a false apostle" argument generally comes from a subgroup of a few thousand people within the "Messianic Judaism" movement.

It may be that very small fringe groups are over-represented on Internet fora like CF.

Parts of the Gospels actually belong to the OT

Huh?

Urantia Book

A well-known fake. No Christians I'm aware of accept it.

The brands aren't necessarily in alignment which can easily be shown (even the large ones ... again Mormonism for example)

Mormonism is certainly outside historical Christian orthodoxy, and here on CF Mormons have a special (unorthodox) icon.

I would agree that there is substantial heterogeneity within broader Mormonism, with, for example, the Hedrickites sitting somewhere halfway between the LDS Church and historical orthodox Christianity.