What controversial beliefs do you hold?

[PeaceByJesus]

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it. Please do not debate the issues themselves, but if you want to reply with what you voted, please feel free.

Incredible! On a purportedly Christian forum almost a quarter of the respondents think Premarital sex is not always sinful and that Same-sex relationships are not sinful!

I propose you add more questions to go along with these:

1. Do you believe the Bible/Scripture is the wholly inspired word of God?
2. Do you believe Scripture is the supreme source and standard for faith and morals (on earth)?
3. Do you believe your church is the supreme source and standard for faith and morals?
4. Do you read the Bible and pray daily?
5. Do you weekly worship and fellowship with believers and receive grace and instruction?
   
6. Are you a continuationist (the supernatural gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are still operative)?
7. Would you describe yourself as a Calvinist?
   
8. Would you describe yourself as a Arminian?
9. Do you actually believe the Nicene Creed as stated in the Statement of Faith?
   
10. Would you describe yourself as theologically liberal?
11. Would you describe yourself as morally, politically liberal?
12. Would you describe yourself as a theologically conservative?
    
13. Would you describe yourself as a morally, politically conservative?
14. Would you describe yourself as a Evangelical?
    
15. Are you a Roman Catholic?
16. Are you Eastern Orthodox?
17. If Catholic, do you believe assent is required for all that the Catholic church teaches?

 

[Sibyl]

Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

"Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture."

So you, presuming to speak for everyone, not only reject my points of view but working to prevent me from expressing them. Once again I say sarcastically "How open minded of you".

 

[Sibyl]

The new translation of the finalized Biblical canon was largely the work of St Jerome, who, in 382 AD, was commissioned by Pope Damascus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Emperor Constantine was not involved in choosing the Biblical Canon but The early Church fathers chose most of the writings that would be included. The Eastern Church had a similar canon that did not include Revelation at that time. The Cathar's had no input on the finalized Biblical Canon but the books were chosen by an ecumenical counsel of elders and Bishops, Not Constantine or the Roman government.

William Tyndale got killed for being disobedient and that was wrong but thousands of Protestants AND Catholics were killed during the troubled times and it even still goes on in Ireland. So intolerance is intolerance no matter who or how you worship.

One other thing then I'll let it go. The Tyndale Bible, The Anglican Church, The Lutheran Church and all the other spin off churches can go ahead and be grateful that the "evil" Catholic Church brought Christianity to western Europe, otherwise they would still be living in small communities worshipping various gods of the Earth and the seasons and they would still be killing each other on a regular basis as half naked Pagan Warriors

I disagree with all of your points.
Constantine directly comissioned the compilation of a common book of jewish and christian writings. While his mother ran around the world collecting relics.
Tyndale was strangled and then burned along with his bibles for trying to make bibles available to english speaking people. "The Church" wanted to keep the bible in hebrew, greek and latin so that people could not dispute the church's interpretation of the bible.
The cathars were exterminate for challenging the church's authority.
At one point the church circulated a list of acceptable christian writings and that all other christian writings were to be destroyed. Very much like the lists espoused on this forum.

 

[Halbhh]

.....

One other thing then I'll let it go. The Tyndale Bible, The Anglican Church, The Lutheran Church and all the other spin off churches can go ahead and be grateful that the "evil" Catholic Church brought Christianity to western Europe, otherwise they would still be living in small communities worshipping various gods of the Earth and the seasons and they would still be killing each other on a regular basis as half naked Pagan Warriors

Good news, friend, I can tell you that since we started (for the first time) attending a Lutheran church about 6 years ago, never once in all my many hundreds (or is it thousands by now?) conversations can I remember the word 'evil' used in relation to the Catholic church itself.

That's good.

Because if people that believe in Christ, risen, and every bit of the Nicene and Aposolitic creeds at any moment call each other's churches 'evil', then in that labeling actual evil is indeed at work.

Christ's church is one, already, and you and I are brothers in faith, and no power under heaven itself could alter that, nor any mistake in our own minds, because ultimately we are in His church, not our own.

You may find it interesting that at least locally here, Lutherans have love and friendship with Catholics, and not just a little.

Having pointed out these things, I don't think of myself as "Lutheran" and it would be a wrong for me to (though ok for some I think for which the word would be used in naive innocence). I'm simply "Christian", and it's not ideology, but reality.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So you, presuming to speak for everyone, not only reject my points of view but working to prevent me from expressing them. Once again I say sarcastically "How open minded of you".

Not at all - go right ahead and express your views now that the rules of this site were read (if you read them).

It will be wonderful to see!

Thanks !

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Good news, friend, I can tell you that since we started (for the first time) attending a Lutheran church about 6 years ago, never once in all my many hundreds (or is it thousands by now?) conversations have I heard the word 'evil' used even one time in relation to the Catholic church.

That's good.

Because if people that believe in Christ, risen, and every bit of the Nicene and Aposolitic creeds at any moment call each other's churches 'evil', then in that labeling actual evil is indeed at work.

Christ's church is one, already, and you and I are brothers in faith, and no power under heaven itself could alter that, nor any mistake in our own minds, because ultimate we are in His church, not our own.

debatable, and very controversial, yes, controversial...
subject to verification, testing, trials, and ..... hmmm....

well, DELIGHT IN GOD'S WORD !

HE takes care of the rest!

 

[rturner76]

I disagree with all of your points.
Constantine directly comissioned the compilation of a common book of jewish and christian writings. While his mother ran around the world collecting relics.
Tyndale was strangled and then burned along with his bibles for trying to make bibles available to english speaking people. "The Church" wanted to keep the bible in hebrew, greek and latin so that people could not dispute the church's interpretation of the bible.
The cathars were exterminate for challenging the church's authority.
At one point the church circulated a list of acceptable christian writings and that all other christian writings were to be destroyed. Very much like the lists espoused on this forum.

In 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea, which was the first general conference of the Christian church. Constantine had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon and it was not even discussed at Nicea. Instead, the council that formed decisions about the canon took place in 397 in Cathage. This was 60 years after Constantine’s death.

Many Gospels and Apostolic writings were already acknowledged by early Christians long before Constantine. In AD 330, Constantine did finance the copying of 50 Christian Scriptures. However, this was not a new Bible.

You are absolutely correct about Tyndale. Many Protestants were persecuted and there is no good reason for it "Thou shall not kill." Also in countries where Protestants did gain control Catholics were then persecuted, also wrong. Over the centuries, Catholics have killed many more people and forced more conversions than any other religion except maybe Islam I don't know. It no longer used these barbaric tactics and the Catechism has been changed to encourage religious freedom. Before the industrial age,in feudal times, people did not have rights between the Nobility and the church, a person's life was not there own and could be taken away for any offence. There are very few places where people still live under those conditions today and God be praised for that. Since these barbaric times have ended I believe The Church has worked for human rights and the relief on human suffering in this world.

Lastly, the Cathars were Dualists and did not follow trinitarian doctrine. However The Church did make up lies about their practices and killed, had them killed, or otherwise persecuted them to the point of near extinction. Totally wrong by modern standards and by Christ's standards. In their backward logic, by protecting their power, they were protecting the faithful from the hell fire.

Having gone through these incidents, I can understand why someone would think the Catholic Church was "evil." I just ask that people keep in mind that barbarism was the accepted behavior of the time. Now The Church helps the poorest of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the addicted, the elderly, the prisoner, the unborn, the children, and those lost souls looking for God. The whole organization's philosophy has changed from judgement to acceptance or more like judgement to openness, from the old shame and shunning the love and grace. So I will always defend The Church when people call her evil.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I think - "controversial beliefs" - that most people don't experientially recognize , abide with, live in union with, or know YHWH nor Y'SHUA MESSIAH, nor hear His Voice.

 

[rturner76]

Good news, friend, I can tell you that since we started (for the first time) attending a Lutheran church about 6 years ago, never once in all my many hundreds (or is it thousands by now?) conversations can I remember the word 'evil' used in relation to the Catholic church itself.

That's good.

Because if people that believe in Christ, risen, and every bit of the Nicene and Aposolitic creeds at any moment call each other's churches 'evil', then in that labeling actual evil is indeed at work.

Christ's church is one, already, and you and I are brothers in faith, and no power under heaven itself could alter that, nor any mistake in our own minds, because ultimately we are in His church, not our own.

You may find it interesting that at least locally here, Lutherans have love and friendship with Catholics, and not just a little.

Having pointed out these things, I don't think of myself as "Lutheran" and it would be a wrong for me to (though ok for some I think for which the word would be used in naive innocence). I'm simply "Christian", and it's not ideology, but reality.

This is the best sentiment I have "heard" in a long time!
Even after my very abrasive reply to the other person. I just reread what I said as it was at the top of your reply and I really did not respond with Christian love or charity the way I could have. I highlighted the rivalry instead of trying to diffuse it. You have shown an excellent example of how to kill someone with kindness.

Because of the kindness you showed me in your posted reply, I feel like I would be remiss to respond to a negative post with anything but a kind word or some kind an attempt to at least try to find neutral ground. It's what we do.

We are Christians and we have love in our hearts given to us by Jesus Christ. Why would we not share it and give it to others. No matter what "kind of" Christian we call ourselves, we all have Christ and through him, The Holy Spirit who gives us life, contentment and even joy which is multiplied by sharing in fellowship. So thank you again for your inspirational post. You seem to have brightened my morning quite a bit!

 

[rturner76]

I think you underestimate the church in Britain. After all, three British bishops were delegates to the Council of Arles in the early fourth century (before Augustine and even Constantine's doings).

If I'm not mistaken, the seat of Rome was still considered the "Bishop of Bishops" at least in the West so at that time were they subordinate to Rome? Another question, and I'm asking these because I don't know not to be a smarty pants, since the Bishops of the Britons were at or even invited to the counsels, wouldn't that indicate that they were somehow affiliated with or getting their information/dogma from the Catholic Church?

 

[Albion]

If I'm not mistaken, the seat of Rome was still considered the "Bishop of Bishops" at least in the West so at that time were they subordinate to Rome?

The most detailed history I've read on the subject stated without equivocation that the British church had, for the first several centuries, almost no knowledge of what was going on in Rome and didn't feel any need for it. And yet several of the Church Fathers and the historian Eusebius wrote about how the faith had extended to even the part of Britain that the Romans hadn't conquered. That would be other than the Glastonbury area of Western Britain where the faith was believed to have been planted. And of course, this is too early for anyone to be thinking of Papal Supremacy and Matthew 16:18, including the Eastern Churches and the bishops of Rome themselves.

Another question, and I'm asking these because I don't know not to be a smarty pants, since the Bishops of the Britons were at or even invited to the counsels, wouldn't that indicate that they were somehow affiliated with or getting their information/dogma from the Catholic Church?

There had to be some communication, I agree, but as for the idea of the British church being subservient to the bishop of Rome, I don't see that as the case. It did happen--to a certain degree--several hundred years later by the Synod of Whitby, but not at this time.

 

[Phil 1:21]

What controversial beliefs do you hold?

I believe people should follow the Word of God. In today's society, that's pretty controversial.

 

[mkgal1]

I was under the impression Universalism was believing there's validity in all religions. But I'm happy to learn.

I think the broad use of the term "universalism" means that (and includes other religions)---but, from what I understand, "Christian universalism" has *everything* to do with Christ and the cross.

A couple of books--that I know of-- that describe Christian Universalism:

and:

 

[SnowyMacie]

Incredible! On a purportedly Christian forum almost a quarter of the respondents think Premarital sex is not always sinful and that Same-sex relationships are not sinful!

That surprised me as well, I didn't think that those percentages would be that high.

I propose you add more questions to go along with these:

1. Do you believe the Bible/Scripture is the wholly inspired word of God?
2. Do you believe Scripture is the supreme source and standard for faith and morals (on earth)?
3. Do you believe your church is the supreme source and standard for faith and morals?
4. Do you read the Bible and pray daily?
5. Do you weekly worship and fellowship with believers and receive grace and instruction?
   
6. Are you a continuationist (the supernatural gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are still operative)?
7. Would you describe yourself as a Calvinist?
   
8. Would you describe yourself as a Arminian?
9. Do you actually believe the Nicene Creed as stated in the Statement of Faith?
   
10. Would you describe yourself as theologically liberal?
11. Would you describe yourself as morally, politically liberal?
12. Would you describe yourself as a theologically conservative?
    
13. Would you describe yourself as a morally, politically conservative?
14. Would you describe yourself as a Evangelical?
    
15. Are you a Roman Catholic?
16. Are you Eastern Orthodox?
17. If Catholic, do you believe assent is required for all that the Catholic church teaches?

I'd love to have an in-depth survey like that on CF, unfortunately CF's poll system is not that complicated and limits the number of responses. In my experience, having an external poll like a Google form discourages participation.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

That I would make a good CF moderator.

 

[Oldmantook]

Other...the earth is flat.

 

[Halbhh]

I would have voted also for "Open Theism" also, if I had know what it was, roughly as I now take it (using my own words and way of thinking), to mean that God allows us free will that isn't only nominal, meaning He hasn't pre-chosen our actions, nor controls them, nor already knows all of them ahead of time, but still allowing of course that He could see what direction a person is heading in unless that person changes direction. In short He made us able to do the unpredictable, at least at moments when most internal forces are near in balance, by His design. Put another way, He gave us free will that really is. One could even speculate that the individual's spirit or soul is the agent that could do the unpredictable choice, at some special moment, and change the direction the self is heading in.

None of this would alter His ability to bring about and accomplish all His plans, of course.

So, I'm guessing that the actual 'open theism' view is more common than the number suggests. More people would vote for it if they had known the term.

 

[mkgal1]

Put another way, He gave us free will that really is. One could even speculate that the individual's spirit or soul is the agent that could do the unpredictable choice, at some special moment, and change the direction the self is heading in.

None of this would alter His ability to bring about and accomplish all His plans, of course.

So, I'm guessing that the actual 'open theism' view is more common than the number suggests. More people would vote for it if they had known the term.

Oh! *That's* what "open theism" is? I wasn't going to search for it quickly and claim I believe it immediately....but that seems pretty straight-forward to me. Yes....I believe that. That's "controversial"?

 

[mkgal1]

Hmmmm...this is probably the "controversial" part of open theism:

"He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. "

I'm not sure I believe that. I do believe that--eventually--God will bring out the future to His desired purpose....that all things will be reconciled to Him. I believe His love never fails (in the long term of things)....and it seems that if the future were conditional upon humanity's actions, that minimizes the power of His love and goodness.

 

[Halbhh]

Oh! *That's* what "open theism" is? I wasn't going to search for it quickly and claim I believe it immediately....but that seems pretty straight-forward to me. Yes....I believe that. That's "controversial"?

I think it can be, because often people mistake the flavor and meaning of various scriptures to reach the conclusion God knows everything ahead of time (meaning not only every key thing(!), but instead even every thing of every kind everywhere, ahead of time, which is not the same at all), instead of for instance knowing many key things ahead of time. So if you say something like God doesn't know if you will choose A or B necessarily at some point in the future (reserving that He could easily anticipate what you will indeed choose unless you change inside in some meaningful way....), some will feel you have contradicted scripture, thinking it says He knows all things (instead of some things) ahead of time. (I think the resolution for these opposing viewpoints is never to isolate verses, but to read through full books with the humble desire to really get all the flavor and meaning and sense, which often requires exactly that full reading through. So, we should read a psalm for instance to absorb the entirety of it, and not skim through in order to take a verse out of it, etc. When you are reading through, you are getting the sense of how David and other writers are using words, sometimes with hyperbole and such, and you make fewer mistakes in taking the words as meant.)