What controversial beliefs do you hold?

[2consider]

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.

Every view is controversial to someone.

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.

Polls! Oh how I despise polls. Here's a controversial statement, no one should ever answer them. This poll and all other polls doesn't truly reflect beliefs.

You're curious what ALL controversial beliefs are held here on CF. Every belief is controversial, only facts are incontrovertible. Asking for all would take a long time, I could list 50 controversial beliefs I hold, none of which are on your list, and some of what you have isn't controversial at all.

I mean seriously, same sex relationships are not always sinful, depending on how you define "relationship." Friendship is a relationship. A fued is a relationship. I have a working relationship with people I work with....

The question should be is having sex with someone of the same sex sin, that's not controversial at all, the bible says it is. If someone disputes that, then the controversy isn't if same sex "relations" are sin, the controversy now is, is the bible accurate.

If what the bible says about having sex with people of the same sex is controversial then every word of the bible becomes subject to controversy.

Here's a controversial view I hold; Christians need to stop focusing on the sins of other people and worry about their own sins. When I see people protesting homosexuals I have to ask, how many of these people are guilty of having sex outside marriage, which the bible also says is sin. To see Christians protesting and shouting down people for their sins I have to say, sometimes I'm ashamed to be associated which such numbskulls.

Here's more controversy, there are no varying degrees of sin. The sin of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. To single that out in a poll just perpetuates the idea that some of us are better than others, and creates an environment of moral equivalency.

 

[redleghunter]

(Although I'm not familiar with Tota Scriptura.)

Can't go wrong IMO with a R.C. Sproul article:

Tota Scriptura by R.C. Sproul

 

[devin553344]

I believe that all the children of Jesus the Christ (God) have at some point sinned to the point of being subject to the lake of fire, and that Jesus the Christ will deliver his children from the lake of fire and calls it a baptism with fire. That death to resurrected life is the baptism with water, and hell to heaven is the baptism with fire. I believe that we are destroyed and given a new resurrected spirit. I believe that there are two resurrections, one physical and one spiritual.

I believe that there is a Heavenly Mother. A God Mother. That administers to women also.

I believe that Jesus the Christ and God the Father (and Heavenly Mother) all administer to the earth and visit and attend over their children also the angels of heaven too. I believe the entire earth and the people therein are considered God's true church.

I believe that God is sealing people on the earth in the forehead thru his Holy Angel to deliver them from evil.

I have more beliefs but that's just a few that are controversial. I also believe that the Catholic church is the most correct church on the earth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In this forum on CF "Controversial Theology" refers to non-Nicene. Some, not all of what @TX_Matt listed are considered 'controversial' by CF but not all of them.

Here's the sub-forum statement of purpose:

Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose

Welcome to Controversial Christian Theology forum. This is a forum for discussion and debate of unorthodox, non-Nicene Christian theology. This forum is open to Christian's only, including both Nicene (orthodox) and non-Nicene (unorthodox) Christians. Please refer to our faith groups list for clarification. This forum is not intended to be a "safe haven" for members who hold unorthodox Christian beliefs. Unorthodox Christian beliefs are those that are contrary to the Nicene Creed, which CF has adopted as the Statement of Faith for the forum.

Non-Nicene unorthodox Christian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Christianity & World Religion forum and the Debate Non-Christian Religions forum. The non-Nicene, unorthodox Christian topics which may discussed in this forum include (but are not limited to):

• Universalism
• Open Theism
• Full Preterism
• Annihilationism
• Gnosticism

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.

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..

*Please note: this forum does not allow discussion or debate of Mormon or Jehovah's Witness religious beliefs. Please discuss Mormonism and/or Jehovah's Witness beliefs in the Christianity and World Religions forum.

Guidelines for Posting in the Controversial Christian Theology Forum

We realize that our Nicene and non-Nicene Christian members have significant differences of belief regarding Christian Theology that will be discussed in this forum. Please remember that this is not an area for promotion of unorthodox beliefs, but it is also not a place to take shots at those who hold them. It is a place for outreach and discussion on topics of controversial unorthodox and speculative Christian theology.

Those holding unorthodox Christian beliefs may not tell Nicene Christians that they are not Christians. Nicene Christians may say that unorthodox beliefs are not traditional, foundational Christian beliefs if they do so in manner that shows why unorthodox beliefs are at odds with orthodox Christian Theology.

Nicene Christians may not accuse non-Nicene, unorthodox Christian members of not being Christians. This is a place for Nicene Christians to explain why they hold controversial unorthodox theologies to be in error, and for non-Nicene Christians to defend and explain their unorthodox Christian beliefs. Discussion and debate which points out why controversial Christian theological beliefs are in error in the context of an explanatory post in a civil, but potentially forthright way, is not considered a violation of the no flaming or goading rule.

Yes, and there are different views of the above terms. Some believe Annihiationism includes the belief of Full Soul Sleep and it does not regard "hell" as a literal place. However, I believe hell is a literal place, but I believe in a partial soul sleep (i.e. That the Wicked will go thru periods of sleep or unconciousness and yet they will also experience moments of consciousness, too - whereby they will be tormented). The only point I agree on with mainstream Annihiationism is that the wicked will be annihiated in the Lake of Fire (After the Judgment). Then there are those who define Gnosticism differently than the way John's 1st epistle defines it. Gnosticism is a two fold belief that denied that Jesus came in the flesh (i.e. that Jesus is God) and that serious sin does not separate you from God. It is why John says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments, we are a liar and the truth is not in us (1 John 2:4). 1 John 1:8 is a warning to believers about the false gnostic belief that says that a person can sin (presently) and yet they are not sinning against God (Whereby condemnation is brought against them). For if we say we have no sin (When we do sin) then the truth is not in us. That is what 1 John 1:8 is saying. For 1 John 1:8 is talking about sin in the present tense and 1 John 1:10 is talking about sin in the past tense. Yet, others define 1 John 1:8 differently today. However, 1 John 1:9 is the solution to the false gnostic belief that is is told to us in 1 John 1:8. If we sin, confess it so as to be forgiven.


...

 

[parousia70]

Not so controversial as this is clearly in the NT (OT too)

Not true.
But I didn't think this thread was for debating the veracity of anybody's comments?

and believed by the apostolic fathers (I.e. Irenaeus and a few others). It was not until the 3rd century such views were considered error.

Millennialism was contested by amillennialists from the first century until the 4th century. The millennialist expectations of Justin, Irenaeus, and others failed to materialize, and they discredited themselves and were an embarrassment to the church of those centuries for their failed endtimes views. They had countless failed prophecies about being in the final generation (much like today's millennialists), and the amillennialists finally exposed their error and shut them down. Thank God for the amillennialists on that one. The Chuch owes them a great debt! Unfortunately, millennialism is back discrediting itself and the Church in our times, and has been doing so since about 1820.

But Again, this thread isn't for debating about these things.

 

[redleghunter]

Not true.
But I didn't think this thread was for debating the veracity of anybody's comments?

You are right as I was not debating. I pointed out to another member their view would not be controversial in the very early church. I'd be happy to note the early church held belief of a physical Kingdom on earth after Christ's return on another thread.

 

[parousia70]

You are right as I was not debating. I pointed out to another member their view would not be controversial in the very early church.

Fair enough. I'll then simply point out to that member that their view WOULD have been (and indeed was) quite controversial in the very early church.

Then The member can then decide for themselves which one of us is right.

I'd be happy to note the early church held belief of a physical Kingdom on earth after Christ's return on another thread.

And I'll likewise be happy to note the Apostles themselves held no such belief. (on another thread, of course)

 

[HereIStand]

Not true.
But I didn't think this thread was for debating the veracity of anybody's comments?



Millennialism was contested by amillennialists from the first century until the 4th century. The millennialist expectations of Justin, Irenaeus, and others failed to materialize, and they discredited themselves and were an embarrassment to the church of those centuries for their failed endtimes views. They had countless failed prophecies about being in the final generation (much like today's millennialists), and the amillennialists finally exposed their error and shut them down. Thank God for the amillennialists on that one. The Chuch owes them a great debt! Unfortunately, millennialism is back discrediting itself and the Church in our times, and has been doing so since about 1820.

But Again, this thread isn't for debating about these things.

Follow what you're saying, but I would make a distinction between date-setting millennialists versus mainstream millennialism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Controversial beliefs I hold to in regards to God's people that go outside the norm of Christian thinking:

#1. Samson was saved.
#2. Samson did not commit suicide.
#3. Solomon was saved.
#4. Ezekiel went to the second heaven (i.e. the sky) and not the third Heaven (i.e. God's spiritual kingdom).
Scripture even shows us about how Ezekiel is still alive afterwards, as well. In addition, a parallel in the Bible for this is Philemon being taken up by the Spirit. Both Ezekiel and Philemon's stories involved chariots, as well. Jesus said, no man has ascended to Heaven except the Son of Man (Who is in Heaven). This means that only Jesus has currently ascended to Heaven.
#5. Hosea was not told by God to marry a prostitute (in the sexual sense). God told Hosea to marry a woman from a people of idolatry. For the word "whoredom" refers to spiritual idolatry here and not sexual prostitution.
#6. Noah's nakedness was in reference to his wife and it was not in reference to himself. It is why Noah cursed Canaan (the son of Ham). For the child was the offspring of sexual immorality (or sin). For it would not make any sense to place a curse upon Ham's child otherwise.
#7. Enoch was taken by God because he pleased God in a righteous way. This point pretty much just goes ignored today by many who are seeking to think that they can commit serious sin and still be right with God today. The same holds true for the 144,000 that are mentioned in Revelation 14:3-5.
#8. Judas was once saved and then later lost his salvation. This is true for various other believers within the Scriptures.


...

 

[parousia70]

Follow what you're saying, but I would make a distinction between date-setting millennialists versus mainstream millennialism.

Interesting.
So when a mainstream millennialist today makes the claim that ours is the final end time generation (the way any, all, and every millennialist who existed prior to our present generation claimed their generation was the "last") would you consider that date-setting?

 

[sandpiper22]

I don't believe in helping God populate His heaven, so I don't believe the gospel saves anyone in the eternal sense.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...Here's a controversial view I hold; Christians need to stop focusing on the sins of other people and worry about their own sins...

I wasn't sure I could hit the agree or like button for your entire post, but I agree with this part. I don't understand many persons' obsession with this topic over all others. As an old straight guy, I've got plenty of old straight guy sins to worry about.

 

[JacksBratt]

Not so controversial as this is clearly in the NT (OT too) and believed by the apostolic fathers (I.e. Irenaeus and a few others). It was not until the 3rd century such views were considered error.

I have had a lot of flack from all of the beliefs that I have posted.

 

[Tetra]

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.

Technically, the forum views simply stating your belief as "promotion" of that belief, and is against forum rules. I know, because I've actually had this very debate with the moderation team in the past.

Just a heads up.

 

[lismore]

I believe Christians should be kind to one another without favouritism and not just clique about with those of a similar age/race/background/social class/ wealth/ education/ political belief. It seems that many are pre-programmed to act in this fashion.

Several believers, mainly older folks and those with disabilities and learning difficulties, have told me that loneliness and isolation in the church are big problems for them. Lord have mercy.

Luke 14:14.

 

[HereIStand]

Interesting.
So when a mainstream millennialist today makes the claim that ours is the final end time generation (the way any, all, and every millennialist who existed prior to our present generation claimed their generation was the "last") would you consider that date-setting?

No. There is distinction between believing that the return of Christ is imminent and claiming with certainty that it will occur in one's lifetime.

 

[Waggles]

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it.

My controversial position is that the Word of God is 100% completely true.
And that a Christian needs to comply with every commandment and doctrine issued by Jesus himself and reiterated
by the Apostles (who were inspired by God to write the epistles).

If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:15
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:31
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
John 15:10

 

[Dkh587]

I think that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are a family, and the Holy Spirit is our Heavenly Mother. I think the family structure of a an earthly Father & Mother bringing forth children is based on the Heavenly Father & Mother. I believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are 3 different beings operating in unity with each other, with the Father being the supreme authority.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[parousia70]

No. There is distinction between believing that the return of Christ is imminent and claiming with certainty that it will occur in one's lifetime.

im·mi·nent
ˈimənənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   about to happen.
   "they were in imminent danger of being swept away"
   synonyms: impending, close (at hand), near, (fast) approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, in the offing, in the pipeline, on the horizon, in the air, just around the corner, coming down the pike, expected, anticipated, brewing, looming, threatening, menacing;
   informalin the cards
   "a ceasefire was imminent"

So where does The Christian from, say, 1250AD, who wrongly believed and taught Christ's return was at that time "Imminent" fall in that distinction?