No true Christian?

[Harel13]

I see it is all inclusive, unless we make it exclusive, by the way we assume God wants it to be.

In the end, we can live our Faith, but it should never cause disunity or give rise to prejudices against other Faiths, no Faith, Race, Gender or culture. But that has to be practiced as a whole, or that unity in a diversity will also not work.

Presumably you hold that not every view is acceptable, correct? Otherwise I assume that other religions would also be included in Baha'i teachings. In which case, not even Baha'ism is all-inclusive. Of course, you hold that there's a place for every individual, but not for every individual's personal beliefs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Presumably you hold that not every view is acceptable, correct? Otherwise I assume that other religions would also be included in Baha'i teachings. In which case, not even Baha'ism is all-inclusive. Of course, you hold that there's a place for every individual, but not for every individual's personal beliefs.

Only when we start to work together will we find how that shapes our lives and Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Harel13]

that

What?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What?

It is obvious that not every view is acceptable. So unless, as the whole of humanity, we get together and work out what is, then progress is not possible.

Regards Tony

 

[Harel13]

It is obvious that not every view is acceptable. So unless, as the whole of humanity, we get together and work out what is, then progress is not possible.

Okay. Not this thread's subject, though.

 

[Muffled]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

I believe there are some essentials to religious belief. Would you consider a person to be truly Jewish if he didn't believe in the ten commandments? Yet there are Christian denominations that think it is OK to abort a child. The whole idea is that Jesus saves us from our sin instead of encouraging it. A concept that says sin is OK is anti Christ.

 

[Muffled]

No true Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Baha'is, nor Scotsmen.

I believe Highlanders are not true Scotsmen. Scotland was named after Scotia who was a founding mother of the Milesian people who migrated to Ireland and then to western Scotland and called it Dalraida on both sides of the Irish Sea. The other ethnic group in Scotland were the Picts who were most likely British. I have ancestors from all three groups.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe Highlanders are not true Scotsmen. Scotland was named after Scotia who was a founding mother of the Milesian people who migrated to Ireland and then to western Scotland and called it Dalraida on both sides of the Irish Sea. The other ethnic group in Scotland were the Picts who were most likely British. I have ancestors from all three groups.

Went over your head. No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule – "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.

 

[Muffled]

There is no ecclesiological mechanism all Christians agree upon to reconcile their many theological disputes. Particularly among Protestants, the pendulum has so sharply swung toward the preeminence of one's personal interpretation of the Bible rather than submitting to the interpretive authority of any church or denomination, that the chances of all Christians being formally "united" is slim to nil.

I believe I did run into it at one church. I tend to be an iconoclast so my views are often at odds with doctrine. I tried to reason with the elders but in the end the bottom line was that the doctrine was right because it came from a higher authority in the church so whatever reasoning there might be from the Bible, it couldn't be right.

 

[Harel13]

Would you consider a person to be truly Jewish if he didn't believe in the ten commandments?

Yes?

So pro-abortion Christians aren't really Christians in your view?

 

[ManSinha]

Yet there are Christian denominations that think it is OK to abort a child

Where in the Bible does it say abortion is a sin? Chapter and verse please - thanks

 

[Muffled]

Went over your head. No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule – "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.

I believe you have educated me today. I hadn't seen the expression used before. Would you say that an essential belief is not ad hoc? I once had a person tell me I wan't a true Christian because I didn't view the Trinity the way He did. I don't doubt that the Trinity is essential but obviously not all the disparate views of it are.

 

[Muffled]

Where in the Bible does it say abortion is a sin? Chapter and verse please - thanks

Thou shalt no kill.

Deu. 5:17 “‘You shall not murder.

 

[Muffled]

Yes?

So pro-abortion Christians aren't really Christians in your view?

I believe they will call themselves Christians but will not be true Christians.

I John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:

 

[shunyadragon]

Thou shalt no kill.

Deu. 5:17 “‘You shall not murder.

Actually if you consider this law universally in the diverse cultures through out the history of humanity, It is: ou shall not cause nor commit 'wrongful death' from the perspective of the different cultures.

 

[Left Coast]

I believe I did run into it at one church. I tend to be an iconoclast so my views are often at odds with doctrine. I tried to reason with the elders but in the end the bottom line was that the doctrine was right because it came from a higher authority in the church so whatever reasoning there might be from the Bible, it couldn't be right.

Among Protestants you will occasionally find churches/denominations who place more emphasis on church authority/tradition than others, but the problem is none of them have an authority to mediate doctrinal disputes that is recognized across all of Christianity.

 

[ManSinha]

Thou shalt no kill.

Deu. 5:17 “‘You shall not murder.

None of which applies to first term fetuses as they would not be able to survive on their own - that is an "interpretation" and I believe you are wrong about that - what happens to the rights of others on their own bodies? Are you going to quote from scripture that you have authority over them? If yes - please supply chapter and verse. You do not get to "enforce" your scriptural beliefs on those that do not follow your particular line of belief.

Why did "Christians" kill so many people on the Crusades? - there is no exception in Deuteronomy for killing adult humans? Why are so many "Christians" gun owners if the only thing that implement can do is kill or maim?

And are you vegetarian by the way? Why do you not apply the "thou shalt not kill" to animals? They have a life too - so if you "extend" this to first term fetuses - who are not "babies" - then extend it to your fellow creatures too - else you know what it makes you? - a hypocrite

There is no place where it says "You shall not murder humans only"

 

[sojourner]

I think perhaps the premise is misplaced. Christianity isn't finally about belief; it's about relationship. Heck, the Apostles were arguing belief and doctrine while Jesus was still amongst them -- who was most favored, who would sit at Jesus' right hand, etc. The corpus of Xy has never agreed with each other, except on one point: Jesus is Lord. How that plays out, is expressed, and is codified is another matter. Xy isn't supposed to be uniform -- only unified. It's supposed to be diverse, but not divided. I'm not aware of any major denomination that condemns all others. As Xtians, we're supposed to foster right relationship, not believe certain things about Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think perhaps the premise is misplaced.

If this were true, then Christians would have no problems with those outside of Christianity who have a relationship with God. But they do. They go so far as to claim that we don't, even though the evidence says we do (the same evidence for the relationship of Christians).

 

[sojourner]

If this were true, then Christians would have no problems with those outside of Christianity who have a relationship with God. But they do. They go so far as to claim that we don't, even though the evidence says we do (the same evidence for the relationship of Christians).

You missed the caveat: I’m not aware of any major denominations who do that.