Christianity: A Summary

[Subduction Zone]

I could say, 'Atheism means whatever anybody wants,' or 'Buddhism is an ideology of domination and oppression!'

Stalin was an Atheist.
Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.
Therefore, atheism is a murderous, genocidal ideology!

I'm sure the atheists would howl in protest over this, as would any rational human being.

The point is, each worldview or ideology, especially one based around a specific Person or event, is tethered to the person or event that bears the name.

Mohammedanism, as Islam was called earlier, is about Muhammad's revelations, passed to his followers. You could start another 'Islam inspired!' denomination, and contradict many of the clear teachings of Muhammad.

This is what the Arianists did, the Mormons, and many offshoots and sects that abandon the essential core elements of Christianity. The philosophical basis, basic tenets, and beliefs are different. They are not 'all the same!', just because they copy some elements, or the name.

Your logic involving Stalin is self defeating. By that logic others could have just as valid of a claim that Hitler was a Christian and therefore it is a religion of genocide. I will agree that the beliefs of some Christians are questionable. But that does not mean that they are not Christians.

Tell me, is a person a Christian if his beliefs say that God is a liar?

 

[blü 2]

They are authoritative BECAUSE they are historical.

Then they're in trouble. The case against their historicity is very strong. And the evidence for the resurrection is a forensic disaster.

Still, faith is often stronger than facts.

As for the rest, we've been over it before.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The definition of historical Christianity is not a philosophical opinion, but historical fact.

There's off course nothing factual about the contents of the beliefs you listed here.
But it is true that these have been the beliefs of christians in history as well as today.

I understood that.

My commentary was just my commentary about the beliefs.

Yes, this is your opinion ABOUT Christianity

Not all of those were opinions though.

but it does not refute the core beliefs

I disagree. I think I certainly showed how the points of your list were one of the following:
- demonstrably false
or
- unfalsifiable, untestable, undemonstrable (and thus no rational reason to believe)

I think ideas that can't be shown accurate, which aren't testable, which include demonstrable falsehoods and which stink of con-men tactics to top it off, are best not believed.

You seem to confirm that this is the biblical Christian perspective, even though you don't like it.

I know it is the christian perspective.
Not only don't I like it, I think it's horrible, irrational, non-sensical and just plain stupid.
If you must know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I could say, 'Atheism means whatever anybody wants,'

You could, but you'ld be wrong.

Stalin was an Atheist.
Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.
Therefore, atheism is a murderous, genocidal ideology!

And the flawed logic here is easily demonstrated:

Stalin had a mustache.​

Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.​

Therefore, having a mustache is a murderous, genocidal ideology! ​

Or

Stalin was white
Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.
Therefore, being white is a murderous, genocidal ideology! ​

The error is that the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the second point, yet both are tied together in the conclusion.

I'm sure the atheists would howl in protest over this, as would any rational human being.

Indeed.
Funny though, how I can't even count the amount of theists who've given me that particular argument and actually meant it, in discussions about morality.

The point is, each worldview or ideology, especially one based around a specific Person or event, is tethered to the person or event that bears the name.

Worldviews and ideologies are not the same thing.

Mohammedanism, as Islam was called earlier, is about Muhammad's revelations, passed to his followers. You could start another 'Islam inspired!' denomination, and contradict many of the clear teachings of Muhammad.

Islam is a religion. Religions are sets of believes that usually require dogmatic adherence. It also comes with an almost literal "instruction manual" on how to live, with rules even including what you can and can not eat on a friday.

Yes, these are ideologies and doctrines that pretty much dominate and overshadow the entire lives of its adherents.

That's what religion is in the vast majority of cases, true.
I'm not aware of any non-religious equivalent of such.

This is what the Arianists did, the Mormons, and many offshoots and sects that abandon the essential core elements of Christianity. The philosophical basis, basic tenets, and beliefs are different. They are not 'all the same!', just because they copy some elements, or the name.

Yet, they are the same in generic terms. In the sense that they make the same kind of claims and appeal to the same kind of "underpinnings" for those claims: "revelations" and "dreams" and "visions". ie, access to "secret" knowledge that mere sinning humans don't have any access too.

There's nothing special about christianity. Be it any of today's many denominations, or "the original one" you are talking about.

 

[corynski]

I have been a student of Christian history and the Bible for over 45 years. My goal here is to offer a simple summary and historical consensus of the Christian faith. I will try to avoid denominational issues or cultural influences, and concentrate on the central elements of historical, biblical Christianity. Many of the terms will be of classical usage, and might carry ambiguity for some. I will try to clarify if there is confusion.

Christianity has been the caretaker of a worldview, concerning the nature of God, man, and the universe.
God
God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He created all things with a word. He is everywhere, and has no constraints of time and space. He is perfect, without flaw, gender, or limitations common to the creation.

Man
Man was created as a perfect being, and enjoyed open communion with God. God created man in His image, and shares traits with the creature. Man was created as an eternal soul, that transcends his material being.

The Universe
The universe was created in purity and perfection, and will be restored to that state when the fallen era ends. The order and majesty of God is reflected in the material universe.

The Fall
Evil and discord entered the universe when an angelic being rebelled against God, and corrupted the perfection of God's creation. Death and suffering became part of the experience of all living creatures. Man joined in that rebellion, where lies, murder, and human corruption ran rampant. Both the material and spiritual realms are in discord, in this cosmos of rebellion and enmity toward God.

Redemption
God made provision for the rebellion of man. Even though man's sins and corruption were contrary to the standard and nature of God, He provided a Way of escape from the coming reckoning. He became a man, Himself, and took the penalty for all of man's sins, if they will receive it. God appeared in the person of Jesus, and revealed the nature of God. He outlined the process of redemption, for those who would accept it. It is a spiritual transaction that has been likened to rebirth, or going from darkness to light. It is a quickening of the soul, where the lost human is awakened to the perception of spiritual reality. It usually involves acknowledging God and the atonement of Jesus, repentance for past wrongs, and the reception of God's Spirit into the redeemed soul. It is a very personal transaction, and transforms the life of the recipient.

Citizenship
The redeemed souls are now God's people. They have been likened to the children of God, His beloved bride, and a home for His dwelling. They are no longer of this fallen world, even though they still live in it. Their primary loyalties are to God and His government, not to any earthly institution of man.

Deception
This world is under the influence of a great deceiver. His goal is to kill and destroy, and to bring confusion to man so he cannot understand the redemption process, and be reconciled to God.

Restoration
The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right. The universe will change, and God's kingdom and rule will be absolute and complete. Sin, death, and evil will no longer define the cosmos, but a restoration will take place, and make all things new.

My goal here is to present a concise summary of the basic, historical Christian faith. I feel that footnotes and proof texts would detract from this goal, but i would be happy to elaborate on any point. My perspective here is one of a 20th century American, but i have tried to avoid temporal or regional biases in this summary. This is, however, my perspective of the basic consensus of Christian belief and teaching, over the last 2000 years.

There are many more nuances and expanded points of science, empiricism, miracles, eternity, destiny, and origins that can be examined in greater detail, if there is interest. But i hope this provides a basic framework for better understanding of the Christian faith.

As Marjorie Leach documents in her excellent book of more than 800 pages, 'Guide to the Gods', 1992, ABC-CLIO, humans have a cultural imperative for creating gods and goddesses it seems, and this current recital regarding Christianity appears to be an excellent example of such an activity. If children were not misinformed from birth by parents and preachers regarding this information, and were instructed in anthropology and evolution instead, they would understand better perhaps the desperate state of the world. Gods and religions evolve, as do languages and skills, it seems to be the nature and structure of our reality. Religion is a cultural innovation which gives identity and meaning to a group of people, which if understood and accepted might eliminate the need for Muslims beating up on Christians and Jews, for example. But cultural mandates are so overwhelmingly powerful when supported by their majority constituents, 90% of the population, as the promises of heaven and paradise are so enticing..........

 

[usfan]

Your logic involving Stalin is self defeating. By that logic others could have just as valid of a claim that Hitler was a Christian and therefore it is a religion of genocide. I will agree that the beliefs of some Christians are questionable. But that does not mean that they are not Christians.

You seem to grasp my point about Stalin. Good.

And the point is, unless the ideology COMPELS or approves the negative behavior , it is unfair and illogical to blame the IDEOLOGY for the actions of an individual.

I can make a compelling argument, if you wish, that Stalin was, indeed, motivated BY his Marxist ideology, in committing acts of genocide, to social engineer the 'New Soviet Man'. Hitler had that same motivation, also motivated by HIS ideology, to create a 'master race'.

But to smear Christianity by association with Hitler, and accuse that Hitler was driven to genocide by mandates within the teachings of Jesus is absurd. Hitler was NOT driven by principles of Christianity, but evolution. Eugenics, not the 'Sermon on the Mount', was his motivation.

Then they're in trouble. The case against their historicity is very strong. And the evidence for the resurrection is a forensic disaster.

So you believe and assert, without evidence. The facts are, that the historical evidence for the words, persons, and events recorded in the NT are overwhelming, and exceed the evidence for every ancient figure.

I know it is the christian perspective.
Not only don't I like it, I think it's horrible, irrational, non-sensical and just plain stupid.
If you must know.

Good. My point is made, and we agree. I can die in peace.

But it is true that these have been the beliefs of christians in history as well as today.

Yes. The core beliefs of Christianity, as described by the Founder and His early disciples, have continued in an unbroken line of orthodoxy.

Departures, offshoots, and 'inspired by!' copies are 'not Christianity.'

And the flawed logic here is easily demonstrated:

Stalin had a mustache.Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.Therefore, having a mustache is a murderous, genocidal ideology! ​

See above. Stalin was driven by his IDEOLOGY, not his moustache, to cleanse humanity with genocide.

Worldviews and ideologies are not the same thing.

I'll leave that distinction with you. They are synonymous in the context of this thread.

You can call it an ideology, a worldview, or a philosophy of life. It is a foundational perspective regarding the Big Questions of life.

Yet, they are the same in generic terms. In the sense that they make the same kind of claims and appeal to the same kind of "underpinnings" for those claims: "revelations" and "dreams" and "visions". ie, access to "secret" knowledge that mere sinning humans don't have any access too.

There's nothing special about christianity. Be it any of today's many denominations, or "the original one" you are talking about.

You were following the logic so well, but then dismiss it to go back to the narrative..

No ALL religious/philosophical beliefs are not 'all the same!' Christianity is not, 'whatever anyone says!' There is an historical, precise and exegetical definition of Christianity , as laid out by the Founder and His earliest followers.

The 'specialness!' of Christianity is not the topic, but the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity was a key element in the rise of western civilization.

humans have a cultural imperative for creating gods and goddesses it seems,

Or so you believe, more exactly.

Belief in God could be based in 2 possibilities:
1. There actually is a God and a spiritual/supernatural dimension.
2. It is a made up fantasy, based on delusion.

Your assumption is #2, but you have no proof for this, you just believe it.

The empirical evidence does not compel a conclusion of godlessness, in the universe.

 

[charlie sc]

Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.

Stalin only went nuts when Lenin died and he become the political leader. His views were his own.

 

[usfan]

Stalin only went nuts when Lenin died and he become the political leader. His views were his own.

Regardless of any post mortem psychoanalysis, it was the IDEOLOGY of Stalin, as it was for Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Victoria, Jefferson, or any public figure. Even in insanity, there is an underlying ideology that is the source for actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to grasp my point about Stalin. Good.

And the point is, unless the ideology COMPELS or approves the negative behavior , it is unfair and illogical to blame the IDEOLOGY for the actions of an individual.

I can make a compelling argument, if you wish, that Stalin was, indeed, motivated BY his Marxist ideology, in committing acts of genocide, to social engineer the 'New Soviet Man'. Hitler had that same motivation, also motivated by HIS ideology, to create a 'master race'.

But to smear Christianity by association with Hitler, and accuse that Hitler was driven to genocide by mandates within the teachings of Jesus is absurd. Hitler was NOT driven by principles of Christianity, but evolution. Eugenics, not the 'Sermon on the Mount', was his motivation.

Sorry, but you are not being consistent. Just like your religion. Hitler could be said to be more of an Old Testament Christian than a New Testament Christian. And you fell into the trap of defending that sort of Christianity. There is a good thing about ignoring the myths of the OT, it makes it much easier to ignore the immoral laws of the OT. The sort of laws that do advocate for senseless murder and genocide.

So you believe and assert, without evidence. The facts are, that the historical evidence for the words, persons, and events recorded in the NT are overwhelming, and exceed the evidence for every ancient figure.

Please don't make that sort of idiotic and false claim. You are the one that runs away whenever I or others have offered to go into more detail. If you want to go deeper into a subject then be willing to discuss it.

Good. My point is made, and we agree. I can die in peace.

Yes. The core beliefs of Christianity, as described by the Founder and His early disciples, have continued in an unbroken line of orthodoxy.

Now this is a claim that you have not been able to support properly. And as to your statement immediately below you have not been able to justify what is and what is not Christianity.

Departures, offshoots, and 'inspired by!' copies are 'not Christianity.'

See above. Stalin was driven by his IDEOLOGY, not his moustache, to cleanse humanity with genocide.

I'll leave that distinction with you. They are synonymous in the context of this thread.

You can call it an ideology, a worldview, or a philosophy of life. It is a foundational perspective regarding the Big Questions of life.

You were following the logic so well, but then dismiss it to go back to the narrative..

No ALL religious/philosophical beliefs are not 'all the same!' Christianity is not, 'whatever anyone says!' There is an historical, precise and exegetical definition of Christianity , as laid out by the Founder and His earliest followers.

The 'specialness!' of Christianity is not the topic, but the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity was a key element in the rise of western civilization.

Or so you believe, more exactly.

You do not get to use the facepalm smiley. You are one of the last people.that should imply that others cannot reason. You need to remember that when it comes to logical thinking it has been you that has failed. If you do not understand your errors ask questions politely. If you want to discuss your false and failed beliefs that is fine. Just avoid trying to insult others.

Belief in God could be based in 2 possibilities:
1. There actually is a God and a spiritual/supernatural dimension.
2. It is a made up fantasy, based on delusion.

Your assumption is #2, but you have no proof for this, you just believe it.

The empirical evidence does not compel a conclusion of godlessness, in the universe.

You have that backwards again. You really should try to understand what atheism is. You won't make such foolish mistakes. First you have a bit of a false dichotomy there. For example, there may be a God, but he does not give a rat's behind about the world. There could be a God, but you worship the wrong one (Ramen). The list goes on. I do to with #2, but it is not an assumption. That appears to be your sin.

Once again,if you want more detail focus the subject of your posts. When you Gish all over the place you will only get a quick correction.

 

[usfan]

Sorry, but you are not being consistent. Just like your religion.

Please don't make that sort of idiotic and false claim.

And you fell into the trap of defending that sort of Christianity.

You've got the ad hom down!

So, you think Hitler was driven by Jesus's teachings in the sermon on the mount, not eugenics..

Everybody gotta believe something..

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've got the ad hom down!

So, you think Hitler was driven by Jesus's teachings in the sermon on the mount, not eugenics..

Everybody gotta believe something..

Now please. Don't lie about others using an "as hom". Correcting errors is neither sort of ad hom.

In fact since you do not understand the concept, use of that term will be taken as an admission that you were shown to be wrong.

And did I not point out that Hitler was more of an Old Testament Christian? Why did you ask a bogus question?

 

[usfan]

Why did you ask a bogus question?

You posted a bogus reply to my post. I was staying on the argument..

I can't help it that you have a revisionist definition of 'ad hominem.' My usage is traditional and classical, not the Orwellian redefinition.



Most of your posts i just skip over.. they are rants, revisionism, and anti-christian bigotry.. i don't feel compelled to reply to every hysterical accusation.. nothing personal, i just have to keep reason alive, in this dying world of Progressivism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You posted a bogus reply to my post. I was staying on the argument..

I can't help it that you have a revisionist definition of 'ad hominem.' My usage is traditional and classical, not the Orwellian redefinition.



Most of your posts i just skip over.. they are rants, revisionism, and anti-christian bigotry.. i don't feel compelled to reply to every hysterical accusation.. nothing personal, i just have to keep reason alive, in this dying world of Progressivism.

No, you simply could not understand the response.

And no, you have a false definition of ad hominem than you have never been able to support. At best you only quoted sources out of context. By the way your use of the term "Orwellian" could be called an ad hom. You see that has nothing to do with the definitions used. That makes it a personal attack unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Once again, when you do not understand something ask questions politely. It is rude to lie about others. Just because you do not understand a post does not make it a rant.

Try again.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Christianity has hurt me greatly. From religious leaders trying to indoctrinate me, to my family wanting to disown me due to religious differences, to spreading misinformation on LGBTQ+. I was still a little open-minded to the subject, however. However, upon seeing the way some Christians, not all, seemingly the ones most unquestioning of it, don't understand how to debate in the 21st century or state valid arguments... I am done.

I'll try to respect people based on what they bring to the table, and what respect and patience of others they demonstrate themselves, rather than buying into ideology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the point is, unless the ideology COMPELS or approves the negative behavior , it is unfair and illogical to blame the IDEOLOGY for the actions of an individual.

I can make a compelling argument, if you wish, that Stalin was, indeed, motivated BY his Marxist ideology, in committing acts of genocide, to social engineer the 'New Soviet Man'.

Sure. And I'll go ahead and assume that you realise that atheism is not the same as "marxist ideology".

Hitler had that same motivation, also motivated by HIS ideology, to create a 'master race'.

But to smear Christianity by association with Hitler, and accuse that Hitler was driven to genocide by mandates within the teachings of Jesus is absurd. Hitler was NOT driven by principles of Christianity, but evolution. Eugenics, not the 'Sermon on the Mount', was his motivation.

To be fair......................
The "ideology" of christianity had been used for 2000 years before Hitler, to hate on Jews. Not universally, no. But if you are going to pretend that Jews haven't been prosecuted by christians for 2000 years, as a direct result of their christian ideology, then you are simply denying history.

Hitler didn't use christian ideology, that is true.
However, Hitler didn't have much trouble to demonize Jews, since he had a foundation, a feeding ground, of some 2000 years of negative energy towards jews to build upon.

This really is undeniable.

Yes. The core beliefs of Christianity, as described by the Founder and His early disciples, have continued in an unbroken line of orthodoxy.

Departures, offshoots, and 'inspired by!' copies are 'not Christianity.'

Off course many of the followers of those "offshoots", will in fact say that YOU are part of a denomination that is an "offshoot" and that THEY are following "true christianity".

See above. Stalin was driven by his IDEOLOGY, not his moustache, to cleanse humanity with genocide.

Having a moustache is indeed not an ideology.
You know what else isn't an ideology? Atheism.

I'll leave that distinction with you. They are synonymous in the context of this thread.

They aren't. Not in this thread, not in another.

A worldview deals with how you see the world, how you think the world is.
An ideology rather deals with how you think the world should be.

You can call it an ideology, a worldview, or a philosophy of life. It is a foundational perspective regarding the Big Questions of life.

All of them together, maybe.
But they still aren't the same thing.


auote

You were following the logic so well, but then dismiss it to go back to the narrative..

No ALL religious/philosophical beliefs are not 'all the same!' Christianity is not, 'whatever anyone says!' There is an historical, precise and exegetical definition of Christianity , as laid out by the Founder and His earliest followers[/quote]



You should read with a bit more attention.
I wasn't talking about the specific contents of the various religions.
I was talking about the type of beliefs in generic terms.

Islam, christianity,... and all denominations thereof ARE the same type of belief.
They invoke the same type of source.
The claims are the same type of claims (cfr the "supernatural").

So indeed, there is nothing special about christianity, or any other religion, in that sense.

The 'specialness!' of Christianity is not the topic, but the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity was a key element in the rise of western civilization.

Sure. And Islam was a key element in the rise of western civilization, just like other religions were key elements in the rise of those civilisations / cultures.

Or so you believe, more exactly.

No... rather: so the evidence suggests.
The vast majority of civilisations / cultures ALL have come up with their own gods and religions - most of which (if not all) are mutually exclusive with one another.

This supports the idea that humans have a tendency to invent religions.

This does not support the idea that a god exists and "reveals" religion - because then we would see at least a couple cultures independently coming up with the same religion. In fact, I'ld go further and if this god that exists is indeed an all-powerfull, all-good and just god, then that God would be more then capable of revealing the same and correct religion to all cultures independently. Not only would he have the power to do so (being all-powerfull), he'ld also have the motivation to do so (all-good), beause why would you on purpose "reveal" conflicting religions? The active and conscious spread of misinformation is already bad enough in itself... But to then also "reveal" conflicting misinformation (realising full well that it will trigger conflict and wars eventually), is not only irresponsible, it's downright evil.

So yea, I feel quite confident in saying that humans have a tendency to invent religions.
We've actually seen several religions being invented and expanding in very recent times. Like Scientology, to name just one example. That didn't exist pre-1950. Today, it has millions of followers worldwide.

Belief in God could be based in 2 possibilities:
1. There actually is a God and a spiritual/supernatural dimension.

How would one know?
There are no demonstrable examples or evidence of such whatsoever.

2. It is a made up fantasy, based on delusion.

Or just honestly mistaken, off course.

And there are many recent examples like that. Scientology, Rastafarianism, etc etc
So we know for a fact that it happens.

There's even a tribe in Africa that worships prince Charles from the UK. They believe he's god.

Your assumption is #2, but you have no proof for this, you just believe it.

We have MANY examples of #2. We have NO examples of #1.

Do the math.

The empirical evidence does not compel a conclusion of godlessness, in the universe.

The empirical evidence is consistent with a godless universe.
There is no evidence to suggest the opposite.




EDIT: fixed quoting error

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You've got the ad hom down!

There are no ad hominims in the post you are replying to.

Perhaps you should read up on the fallacy, because you don't seem to understand what it is really.

So, you think Hitler was driven by Jesus's teachings in the sermon on the mount, not eugenics..

I didn't see @Subduction Zone make that claim that all....

 

[corynski]

You seem to grasp my point about Stalin. Good.

And the point is, unless the ideology COMPELS or approves the negative behavior , it is unfair and illogical to blame the IDEOLOGY for the actions of an individual.

I can make a compelling argument, if you wish, that Stalin was, indeed, motivated BY his Marxist ideology, in committing acts of genocide, to social engineer the 'New Soviet Man'. Hitler had that same motivation, also motivated by HIS ideology, to create a 'master race'.

But to smear Christianity by association with Hitler, and accuse that Hitler was driven to genocide by mandates within the teachings of Jesus is absurd. Hitler was NOT driven by principles of Christianity, but evolution. Eugenics, not the 'Sermon on the Mount', was his motivation.

So you believe and assert, without evidence. The facts are, that the historical evidence for the words, persons, and events recorded in the NT are overwhelming, and exceed the evidence for every ancient figure.

Good. My point is made, and we agree. I can die in peace.

Yes. The core beliefs of Christianity, as described by the Founder and His early disciples, have continued in an unbroken line of orthodoxy.

Departures, offshoots, and 'inspired by!' copies are 'not Christianity.'

See above. Stalin was driven by his IDEOLOGY, not his moustache, to cleanse humanity with genocide.

I'll leave that distinction with you. They are synonymous in the context of this thread.

You can call it an ideology, a worldview, or a philosophy of life. It is a foundational perspective regarding the Big Questions of life.


You were following the logic so well, but then dismiss it to go back to the narrative..

No ALL religious/philosophical beliefs are not 'all the same!' Christianity is not, 'whatever anyone says!' There is an historical, precise and exegetical definition of Christianity , as laid out by the Founder and His earliest followers.

The 'specialness!' of Christianity is not the topic, but the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity was a key element in the rise of western civilization.

Or so you believe, more exactly.

Belief in God could be based in 2 possibilities:
1. There actually is a God and a spiritual/supernatural dimension.
2. It is a made up fantasy, based on delusion.

Your assumption is #2, but you have no proof for this, you just believe it.



The empirical evidence does not compel a conclusion of godlessness, in the universe.

us fan..........
Of course it would depend upon what you would accept as proof. No 'god' has ever shown up when I have suggested it do so, and the reports of others regarding this subject is predominantly the same. No god has communicated with me in any respect, regardless of my petitions that it do so. Jesus, if he was a real person, never came back after saying he certainly would......

The circumstantial evidence may suggest such a god hopefully might exist in reality, but if there were one dominant 'god' over the millennia as you suggest, surely think this would be a different world. You can't deny that humans create gods and goddesses, as each culture does this for it's own purposes, from the earliest of times.

Personally I am puzzled as to why a 'god' would create a world where every living creature was required to eat another living creature to stay alive, and why a 'god' would not show up until the last few thousand years. Perhaps if you had some real evidence that could be examined.

Plus I belief that proving that something or someone doesn't exist is an impossibility.........

Regarding this quotation, us fan I believe:

"There is an historical, precise and exegetical definition of Christianity , as laid out by the Founder and His earliest followers"

I believe this is not true and that there is no way to prove such a thing......

 

[sojourner]

There is a lot of confusion and flawed information about what 'Christianity' is. I wished to present a summary, as have many before, to reaffirm the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy. I am sure there are departures and offshoots from Christianity that do not carry the same core beliefs, so differentiating between them is necessary, especially since the term, 'Christian!' has become so ambiguous.

I wouldn’t call this “fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy.” It has too much Reformed and Calvinistic flavor to be orthodox, in the strict meaning of that term.

 

[sojourner]

Or do you want to discuss the precise definition of Christianity

There is no universally agreed upon definition.

This is an attempt to DEFINE historical, biblical Christianity, as begun by the Founder

You missed the mark.

Are you claiming that any of these points are NOT exemplary of historical Christianity

Yes.

I see a lot of caricatures of Christianity, based on distortions, smears, and revisionism

Strictly speaking, the historic, credal churches who have remained in the Apostolic Succession are the only bodies that present a historic continuity of theological development and curation. I believe the RCC, the EO churches, and the Anglicans are the major players in the West.

Departed saints, and their role in living Christians, is a personal belief, and is not a theme in the earliest traditions of Christianity

Hmm... Paul describes the “great cloud of witnesses.” I’d say that was a theme in the earliest tradition of Xy.

Not so. The historical, biblical ideology called 'Christianity

Xy is neither strictly biblical, nor as limited as an ideology.

3. There are optional beliefs, not clearly defined by biblical precepts

The earliest Xtian Tradition was not limited to biblical precept, but relied on the precepts of Apostolic leadership.

 

[sojourner]

Most of the points in the OP are established by the earliests apostles, biblical authors, creeds and apologists. They established the 'baseline' for all future definitions of Christianity.

Paul represents a gross departure from James. Yet your “baseline” is quite Pauline. The creeds also present a departure from earliest Xy. What were After isn’t a “baseline” but a credible and historically responsible continuum of theological development.