1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As a Christian, what specifically do you believe? And why?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Immortal Awakened, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. Dentonz

    Dentonz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    234
    Ratings:
    +27
    That is exactly what I mean, and the Christians who follow the doctrines of men need to get back to the Bible.


    "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" By studying the Bible you learn to 'hear' what God is saying to you through it. And from knowledge you build faith to personally follow Jesus. I pray to God daily and I feel his presence in everything I do, I ask for his guidance and I feel that he leads me by his Holy Spirit. Therefore I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't have to believe what any 'religion' tells me just because it's there interpretation of the Bible. I study myself to see if what they say can be backed up by the Bible. I'm not saying I understand it all, but when I find something I don't understand I ask the Lord to reveal it to me, and he does.
     
  2. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    im agnostic myself, but when i speak with many christians, they are very extra-biblical

    arent these simply your own thoughts?

    faith is built from book knowledge?

    what does God's presence 'feel' like?

    im not sure how this relates to having a relationship; it honestly sounds like youre simply trying to learn from a book and commune with the universe

    why is 'religion' bad?; James speaks of pure and undefiled religion

    James 1
    27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
    (NAS95)

    did a church tell you that religion is bad?

    i do also, although im agnostic, and havent come to the same conclusions as many christians have from reading the bible

    none of your questions go unanswered?
     
  3. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    Well I'm Christian and I'm absolutely certain that my 'belief system' doesn't originate in the Bible. It, like my Church, originates in the Incarnate Christ. The Bible isn't the basis of the Church but was written and collected by Her. She existed for several hundred years without the current canon of Scripture and would have continued to exist even if the NT had never been written. Comments such as the above speak to me of nothing more than an ignorance of the history and development of the canon and the Church that collected it. The Church is older than (and the creator of) the Bible, so how can She possibly be based upon it?

    James
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Merlin

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +49
    I am quite disappointed. with the number of times you have mentioned this, I expected something really momentous.

    And I will admit surprise that you think the God that can create a billion universes cares about such things.
     
  5. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    It is momentous. It is momentous theologically speaking, to distort the nature of God that has been revealed to the Church, whether you understand that or not. I accept that many here do not understand the ins and outs of this, but the seemingly small change has profound implications in various aspects of theology. It's also momentous in terms of the practical results of its introduction. I would call a near 1000 year, and avoidable, schism momentous. And it's not about what God cares about. I don't think anyone is going to be condemned for genuinely holding to an erroneous view of His nature. Where did you get the idea that I did? I certainly don't deny that the RCs and other filioquists are Christians. It is about truth and revelation. The filioque is wrong and contradicts revelation, so I cannot accept the Creed as altered at Toledo, but that doesn't mean I think God will damn those who do accept it.

    James
     
  6. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +559
    Never visions. Only once an actual voice which simply said, "You aren't listening."



    I'm not disagreeing.

    I don't know whether He does or not. The bible was written by man...with his own agenda. All you have to do is look at the number of versions of the bible we have now and you can see major word changes which change the whole tenor of a passage.


    See above

    I believe there are many possibilities for why this is written this way. Some arrogant male decided this was a great opportunity to keep women in "their place" and so tweaked the original scrolls or perhaps it was because of the culture of the time when this was expected of women.

    Here are my rules for living and it's impossible to go wrong if I abide by both:

    But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
    Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

    Matthew 22:34-40


    I believe the proof is in faith. Once I quit rebelling and accepted in faith, my eyes and heart were opened to so many truths. I can't explain it better than that.

    If you're looking for proof that you can hold in your hand, it's not going to happen....until it's too late.
     
  7. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    then perhaps your belief system is not actually christian; what specifically do you believe?

    how do you know that your church originates with the incarnate christ? dont all churches claim this? how are you defining 'your Church'?; the church broke into many schisms before the apostles even died out; how can you know that any of them are even true?; i personally have no reason to believe that any of them are anything but false

    i never said that it was; rather i stated that the bible is the basis for the church's belief system; the church and the church's belief system are two different things; i believe that youre simply confusing the two with each other

    this is not true of the old testament; perhaps youre just referring to the new testament

    do you believe that the texts themselves are infallible? if so, did they become infallible only upon canonization or were they infallible well prior to canonization, when they were originally written? and if you dont believe that they are infallible, then what makes you think that your church is a true reflection of the incarnate christ in the first place?; how do you even know what the incarnate christ looks like?; you werent even living back then; the early church was very schismed according to various different belief systems; which early schism was true and which early schism was false?

    this isnt quite true; although there was not formal canonization at that early point, the early schismed church groups still possessed the texts themselves; in fact, they had more than what has been canonized today; its not like they didnt have bible texts; and its not like they didnt believe them to be inerrantly inspired, the way that they believed that the old testament was inerrantly inspired

    again, totally untrue; they based their faith on a combination of uncanonized new testament texts, which they believed to be inerrantly inspired, coupled with unverifiable oral traditions which changed from time to time; just because the new testament texts were not yet canonized didnt mean that they didnt have the early new testament texts in their possession; nor did it mean that they didnt believe in the infallibility of those texts as they already had believed in the infallibility of the old testament

    comments such as what youve written simply communicate nothing more than your own ignorance of the existence of many ancient canons and many ancient churches; perhaps your pretextually-based historical distortions have led you to believe that there was only one canon of scripture; or one church for that matter; but i have to assume that you are moreso referring to the last and final canonization of scripture, politically inspired as it was; prior to this last and final scripture canonization, there were multiple schismed church groups which each authorized different canons

    the church did not create the bible; the existence of the old testament predates the formation of the early church by several hundreds of years; now thats just ignorant; further, the canonization of the new testament texts do not constitute the creation of the new testament as you may assert; canonization and creation of the original manuscripts are two entirely different things; youre not concisely delineating

    again, youre confusing the christian belief system with the christian church; they are two different things; the texts began as oral traditions which were later written down; these oral traditions were written by the apostles themselves, as were directly reflective of either the words of jesus or the beliefs of the original apostles; these texts were thereafter circulated with the common belief that they were inerrant, well prior to their last and final canonization; inerrancy and canonization are two entirely different things

     
  8. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,350
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    You've got a good point. ;)
     
  9. Malus 12:9

    Malus 12:9 Temporarily Deactive.

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,672
    Ratings:
    +99
    I think Merlin, they believe that Christ is the basis of the religion, not the Bible.
     
  10. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    I can't possibly answer this in such a short time. Could you? If you really are interested, why not read up on our beliefs from Orthodox Church sources? There are plenty of good websites I'll be happy to point you to.

    My Church is the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. I know that She originates in the Incarnate Christ because we have direct lines of succession from the Apostles. She, whilst still in communion with Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians, is the Church that wrote and collected the New Testament and canonised it, along with the entire Septuagint OT as the Bible. No churches other than the three mentioned can claim to have done this. And you can't break into schisms, a schism is a break. Please show me any evidence for any major schisms prior to the Council of Chalcedon. Heretical groups like the Ebionites or Gnostics don't count as they were never in the Church to begin with.

    Obviously the Church's beliefs and the Church are different, but as part of the beliefs of the Church, ecclesiology, is precisely about who and what the Church is you simply cannot pull them apart in the way you wish to.

    No, I'm referring to the Bible. The OT is part of the Bible, not the whole. Without the NT there is no Bible. And, actually, the Church did cannonise the OT also, the Septuagint version of it, which is why none of the churches I previously mentioned use the Masoretic Text like many Protestants. How can the Church's beliefs, then, be based on an infallible Bible if Protestants are willing to remove great sections of it?

    No

    Not applicable

    Why shouldn't She be? Please show me somewhere in the Bible (as that is all you can base your beliefs on) where is says the Bible is infallible. I'd be particularly interested to see if you can find such a reference to the NT.

    Why is this relevant? Do you think we need to see Christ's face to understand His teachings? The time at which I was born is completely irrelevant and those of us who believe despite not having seen are more greatly blessed than those who saw, or isn't that in your Bible?

    No, the Church was a remarkably homogeneous body considering the difficulties of geography and persecutions. Please try to learn the difference between a schism and a heresy.

    Some local churches had some texts, some had others. They argued for centuries about books like Revelation, Hebrews, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. If they didn't have all of (and often had other texts beside) your inerrant Bible then they didn't have your inerrant Bible at all. And you've yet to show a single jot of evidence that the texts were considered to be infallible. There's a big difference between inspiration and infallibility.

    I've answered most of this above. By your own admission they didn't have the same collection of texts you have in your Bible and you've shown no evidence at all that they believed in textual infallibility, not even of the OT (And as you're neither Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox the chances of your OT corresponding to that of the early Church is effectively nil.) I'm also interested in some evidence that oral Holy Tradition changed over time. Unless you can provide evidence to support your claims you really should be a bit more careful about stating them as fact.

    This is a laugh. Anybody here who has come across my posts on this subject before will be only too well aware that I'm constantly using the argument of there being no one canon of Scripture against sola scripturalists like yourself. There are, in fact, four separate canons still in use today. Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox (including most Oriental Orthodox) and Ethiopian. Historically there was a fifth Syriac canon that used the Pe****ta rather than the four Gospels. There has never been and will never be one single, infallible canon of Scripture, which fact supports my position, not yours.

    I'm afraid that it is your paragraph above that is ignorant. I was talking of the Bible which is a collection of books, not the individual texts within it. You're quite right that the texts are earlier, but until they were canonised in the 5th century there was no collection agreed on by the whole Church and hence no Bible.

    And whichj you think changed over time, making your texts less than infallible, surely?
    How do you know this? It's not in the Bible (no, not even the names of the books are contemporary with the texts). I know who wrote them (and most of the authors weren't Apostles) but that's because I accept the Holy Tradition kept by the Church which you reject because it 'changed from time to time.' This is the problem with sola scriptura - even sola scripturalists can't stick to it.
    Inerrancy and canonisation are indeed two different things, but you have yet to provide one piece of evidence that the early Church believed in the inerrancy of Scripture. Find me anyone who believed in anything like sola scriptura prior to the Reformation and I'll be incredibly surprised. Go on, see if you can do what no other sola scripturalist here or anywhere else has ever managed to do and convince me that your doctrine is older than 16th century.

    James
     
  11. Merlin

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +49
    I wonder why they quote it so much then?

    Incidentally, the Bible does happen to be the only evidence about Jesus.
     
  12. Malus 12:9

    Malus 12:9 Temporarily Deactive.

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,672
    Ratings:
    +99
    Because in effect, Christ is the basis of the Bible ;)
     
  13. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    To James the Persian:

    I will respond to your post shortly; Please note that I am agnostic as per the designation atop this post, which means that I am not sola-scripturean; I neither believe in the infallibility of the bible nor the infallibility of any church; I will be glad to shortly provide texts from the bible itself which demonstrates the early christian belief that the texts are infallible; this does not mean that i, as an agnostic, agree with the infallibility of the texts; it simply means that this is what christians believed; the roman catholic church also believes in the inerrant infallibility of the bible, despite your personal deviations from the roman catholic belief system
     
  14. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    OK. You speak like a sola scripturalist and you had no religion noted so I assumed you were one. Sorry. I'm looking forward to your Biblical quotations because if you manage to find even one then you'll be the first person here who has ever done so. You also misinterpret RC teaching unless I'm much mistaken. They believe, as do we, in the inerrancy and infallibility of the message of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that they don't believe in the inerrancy of the texts themselves and they most certainly believe, exactly as we do, that their faith and the Bible are both based on the Incarnate Christ. They are by no means sola scripturalists. Interestingly, if you want to convince me the early Church held such a view you might like to think about why it is such a view is unknown in any of the churches that pre-date the Reformation. As for personal deviations from the Roman Catholic faith, I have none. I am not a Roman Catholic and never was. Where my beliefs and an RC's beliefs differ is where our churches disagree and from our perspective it is the See of Rome who deviated from the Catholic faith when She broke off communion with the other four (now Orthodox) Patriarchates and formed the Roman Catholic Church. You seem to be having somewhat of a difficult time identifying just what Church I belong to.

    James
     
  15. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    that may have been me


    youre neutral then?


    why would one suppose God would change, if in fact God were perfect?


    so why would you believe any of it?


    the different versions of the bible that we have today still work off of mostly the same manuscripts


    i believe that the arrogant male who wrote these verses was paul the apostle; nothing was forged or altered; its simply hard for many to conscience that the original authors may have been off


    the love commandments that youve provided originate from the old testament law of moses; the new testament here quotes the old testament


    notice that this lawyer is asking jesus about the law of moses in this verse

    the new testament quotes the following sources from the old testament law of moses:

    Deuteronomy 6
    4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
    5 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
    (NAS95)

    Leviticus 19
    17 'You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.
    18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.
    (NAS95)

    these precise verses are where the two great love commandments originate

    the problem with this, however, is that these were legal commandments from the old testament legal system; if someone violated either of these two legal commandments, they were most often strictly executed; when you espouse these two legal commandments, you are in fact espousing the old testament law of moses from whence they originate; what punishment do you mete out when these two legal commandments become violated?

    what if a person's faith is not christian? does their faith constitute proof also?

    quit rebelling against what? accepted what in faith? are you referring to the old testament love commandments, which originated from the law of moses, which were punishable by capital execution?


    i dont believe that divinity can be fully explained, because it is not fully understood in the first place


    im looking for proof against the violent nature of the god of the bible; but thus far i havent found it; the god of the bible still stands violent


    too late? how so? will i be consumed in the eternal hellfire? ive violated the love commandments as located in the law of moses?
     
  16. Malus 12:9

    Malus 12:9 Temporarily Deactive.

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,672
    Ratings:
    +99
    Anyone,(regardless of religion or beliefs)own faith constitutes proof, in their own self
    belief that it constitutes proof.

    God. This who believe in God say it is an act of "rebelling against God" to not follow
    him or believe.

    Let me know if you obtain any, I am interested also :D


    :rolleyes: There we males go again :biglaugh:
     
  17. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    you honestly strike me as just another contentious christian who is quick to label others as ignorant; i have no desire to debate a stance that you erroneously label as sola-scriptura, when i am not even a christian, nor was i presenting a sola-scripturean stance in the first place; youre again confusing infallibility with sola-scriptura, as youve confused a number of things thus far; insofar as youve been unable to differentiate between a christian and an agnostic up to this point, i have absolutely no desire to further investigate the stance of your religious denomination; youve already made your judgments, and i dont care to expend my energies to alter them; i suggest that you stick to your judgments, instead of rendering apologies to appease your own sense of conscience; i honestly have no desire to associate with someone so filled with religious projections; thanks anyway
     
  18. Immortal Awakened

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +5
    not in the christian's commonly narrow-minded perspective; other faiths dont constitute proof; only their own, with or without additional validation

    ive been instructed by various religionists that since my belief system is not christian, that im in rebellion against a god; my perspective is agnostic

    i dont believe that any proof against a violent god concept exists; the bible asserts the existence of the god of love and genocide; any other god concept is entirely extra-biblical, either originating from non-biblical writings or from someone's wild imagination; although i find that a few christians will deny the scriptures themselves, in order to shield themselves from a genocidal god concept as the bible presents; if one cannot endorse the credibility of the bible when it presents God as genocidal, then the bible also lacks credibility when presenting a God of love
     
  19. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +559


    I don't know. You'll have to ask those who believe this.




    Because I believe that basically it holds the truth and there is consistency throughout...if you don't pull verses out of context and remember why each book was written. I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.




    But who's to say they translated perfectly from the original?


    Could've been. Then again, his writings have been taken out of time and culture and might have been appropriate at the time.




    Just because it appeared in the OT does not make it less meaningful. In fact, because Christ reiterated those commandments, it makes it even more important.


    No sir. When I espouse these two commandments, I do so because Christ said they were the two greatest commandments and am not espousing the OT at all.


    </FONT>My truth says that Christ is the only way so, no I do not believe it does, else I would not believe what I do. Beyond that....not my business.


    Accepted the truth which is Christ.



    Or don't want to find it. Stop trying to understand why God made the decisions He did in the OT which is an infinitessimally small slice of time and instead look to the NT where his love and mercy are so apparent.




    I don't know if it's hellfire or just complete physical and spiritual death...but at some point our chance is gone.
     
  20. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,350
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    No, it's not. It's just the only commonly accepted evidence about Jesus. ;)
     
Loading...