I wonder if the authors of the article will see the obvious.
That they aren't in charge of what Christianity means. Christianity means whatever a Christian means by it.
Probably they won't.
Tom
-
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!
Is "American Christian" an Oxymoron?
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
That they aren't in charge of what Christianity means. Christianity means whatever a Christian means by it.
Probably they won't.
Tom
Interesting article. But I think "heretic" is a rather strong word to use. It does demonstrate however how ignorant of their own doctrines many Americans are.
Prove? I want to know why you are so funny. Jesus asked a question, "who is the faithful slave?". It is a question! A question is never, ever proof of anything on this planet or any other place in forever. OK?
That's a definite possibility.
Thanks for your input.
I think it also has to do with what is taught, the content. Not just what many find as seeming contradictions, but also, when the followers -- the laity class, I guess? -- realize how many different views there are, under the 'Christian' umbrella - it's overwhelming, and they feel they can just 'stay home,' and 'believe in Jesus.'
The math seems very wrong to me.
And
I think that nothing created can be God unless it all is, which is something that I do not believe, but I don't know why.
So, if Jesus is really God then only three out of ten responders or fewer should say that he is “the first and greatest being created by God,"
Yes, that's why I didn't put it in the title. (Maybe I shouldn't have used "oxymoron ". 'Confusion' might have been better.)
Do you realize, though, how many people there have been throughout the centuries, who didn't agree with church tenets, but they still loved the Bible? It's amazing, to me! (Isaac Newton was one. If I make it into the New World, he's a person I'd really like to meet when he's resurrected! Learning about his staunch support for the Bible, and lack of support for the Church, was one of my main encouragements to study it and take it seriously. I'm very glad I did.)
Yes, good observation. He did value the Jews. Though it wasn't nationalism he had pride in. He simply loved the people....they were the ones that his Father, Yahweh, had protected for centuries, due to their being descendants of Abraham, and the chosen lineage that He as the Messiah would come through.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
This is yet another example of what a poor communicator the God of the bible is. No one can agree on what His book actually says and God has made absolutely no attempt to clarrify it's meaning over the centuries. It's almost as if the entire thing was just made up by fallible human beings.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Especially since Christianity now has how many sects? At least one-thousand I figure?
That depends on the subjective line drawn around them. If you define "sect" very narrowly, the larger churches start to be collections of smaller sects. There's a huge array of different beliefs within the RCC.
Tom
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
True and I was thinking that before you said it. I think some of the difference in ideas are not enough to constitute sectarian differences. I suppose that depends on how strict one wishes to be. I think about how I'd determine what a sect is in a Buddhist context as well. To be fair, I wouldn't apply a standard to Christians that I wouldn't my own worldview. I am not sure most of the divisions in Mahayana for example, constitute sects.
Likewise, I wouldn't be too certain that differences in the RCC do. Usually, minor differences I think?
No, I'm not. One reason I posted the article, is because it portrays the confusion amongst many who identify as Christians.
How did me posting this, give you the impression that I support trinitarianism?
I also just thought it was funny, in a sad kind of way.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Ive read a figure as high as 43,000!
Don't know if I agree with that, though. Another figure I've read several times is 33,000. That's still incredibly high....but I can see it.
Well, the author of the article seems to support the belief in the Trinity and criticizes those claiming to be Christian for not.
The problem is, of course, that 'orthodox' Christianity is quite different than Christianity as it is practiced by believers.
Also, yes, people are remarkably ignorant of their own religious texts. In this, I didn't find the conclusions surprising. I have found that atheists, for example, are often more aware of what the Bible says than many Christians are.
Sadly, I have to agree.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
God preserved the teachings of Jesus in every translation on earth they are the same--barring Earth--Land at Matthew 5:5-- Earth is correct.
Few know them. Like this super important one--- Matthew 6:33--Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his ( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added to you. ( sustenance, covering, spirituality)-- then one learns to accomplish this-John 4:22-24= The Father-YHWH(Jehovah)
Not many listen to Jesus.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
I could search for the six, but I won't. You have said that you know 100% that the JWs are right because they alone are being taught by Jesus. That isn't true.
No He didn't.
And to make matters worse, Scriptures are extremely open to interpretation. You may be very attached to your interpretation of what some ancient bishops decided to include in the Canon, but it's not from Jesus.
Sorry to disappoint.
Tom