I appreciate that summary. It is to the point avoiding the many trivial doctrinal issues that divide the Body of Christ. Though many claim to adhere to the Christian tenants of faith, there are those that compromise what you have spelled out. In my estimation, those are not at all Christian.
Nope! That is NOT the most controversial issue regarding Christianity as far as those who already have a good understanding of the subject matter goes. The most controversial issue regarding Christianity is what the OP has NOT addressed. The OP has made ASSUMPTIONS about everything that was stated in the OP and it is those ASSUMPTIONS that are most controversial issue.
Hi, I would like to participate if I may but please bear in mind I'm not a Christian but I am interested in History in particular the ancient roman period up to and including Constantine which would include the various debacles surrounding Arian, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria etc. As part of my reading about Roman history it became clear that the rise of Christianity is a major part of the development of the political and sociologial side of the Empire. I was particulary interested in the rise of a seemly obscure Jewish cult that morphed into the state religion of the empire in the late 4th/early 5th century and subsumed all the other religions and beliefs enjoyed by the citizens of the empire. I have read a number of books about the early "christian cults" and the proto-christian beliefs up to the development of orthodoxy. I've read a number of the texts of the patristic scholars like Origen, Tertullian and the like. When you say that the various proto-christian beliefs "led people astray" what in fact were they straying from? Jesus was a jew not a christian, however, if you look at the dead sea scrolls for example they were a canon held up by the Ebionites and, based upon their belief system, it seems that they were closer to what was in the minds of the earlier proto-christians (maybe even Jesus?) than what finally came out of the desire for orthodoxy and what we have now? From an non-christian view point, you mentioned that "Jesus started it," but from what I have read it seems, at least to me, that Paul is the main force behind what is now accepted as the correct theological view. It was his version of events and his version of theology that finally won out over all the other conflicting christologies for example. I was intrigued that Mani was the first person to put together a canon of books to support his theological views (he had 11 books although he heavily edited Paul) and that Irenaeus was then forced to counter Marcions theological views with an alternative canon - almost that of today's new testament. I guess the point I'm laboring to make is that there was no defined orthodoxy up to...well really 325 when Constantine needed to get a grip on the views of various sqabbling bishops in order to maintain "stability" within the empire. I find that an interesting comment as from what I have read there is very little historical or accurate accounts of Jesus, his actions or his words. As I said I am not a christian and I am not in any way shape or form trying to undermine or ridicule anyone's faith.
Hell is separation from God. Leave it at that. If there were no hell, why would there be a need for a Savior? To save us from what? It is clear that Salvation is not earned. It is a gift of God. The question of whether or not it is forordained can be a mystery. God has known us before we were created but because of love, he has given us sovereignty over our destiny. Paul was a Servant of Christ. There is no division there. You can't rightfully divide the Spirit of Truth by chasing every wind of doctrine. Either Jesus sent His Holy Spirit to guide us into that Truth or He didn't. Focus must be on that. Not what others are doing. It is personal.
This is accurate..... though many will point to the word "catholic" and say that means the Catholic Religion......it doesn't.
Well stated. Atheists like to claim they do not rely on truth. In other words they pretend to believe in only scientific fact. Since science does not answer all the questions, they are dishonest. They too take a lot on faith.
..on the contrary, they do exist, and have been an important part of defining christian orthodoxy for millennia! In the book of acts, there is a 'mini creed', from some of the disciples to new converts. Irenaeus, in the late 2nd century, was an early contributor to what would become a common practice, among the followers of Jesus. Irenaeus’ “Rule of Faith” (Late 2nd Century) “…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; And in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…”
No problem, here are some of the ASSUMPTIONS that are controversial. Assumes that there is a god without any evidence. Assumes attributes of a god without any evidence. Assumes creation without any evidence. Assumes creation of man without any evidence. Assumes attributes of man without any evidence. Assumes communication between god and man without any evidence. Assumes creation of the universe without any evidence. Assumes attributes of the universe without any evidence. Assumes some state of the universe "will be restored" without any evidence. Assumes that the universe "reflects" something regarding your god without any evidence. Assumes that there was some "cause of evil" without any evidence. Assumes that there was some "state of perfection" that "existed" without any evidence. Assumes some "rebellion" happened without any evidence. Assumes the existence of a "spiritual realm" without any evidence. I could continue but let's deal with those assumptions before we address the remainder.
IMO, Paul. The self appointed apostle. How much of christian beliefs and dogma originated with Paul? Personally I think the christianity that arose was a corruption of what it was supposed to be. For that is what man has a habit of doing. None of the gospels were written by the apostles of christ. Why is this? If we could verify that indeed they were, which cannot be done, what was written by them would have weight. And what if it turned out to be the only gospel actually written by an apostle was the gospel of thomas? If that were true, it would completely change christianity. That gospel is just the supposed sayings and teachings of JC. No apostle adding his two cents, putting legs on a snake. How exactly does the death of christ save humanity? For in christian tradition, this is of prime importance. Without his death you have nothing, according to tradition. How does an animal sacrifice or the sacrifice of the Son, actually save humanity? How does the blood shed by JC wash away sin? So that one can then be saved? Looks like a bunch of magic and hocus pocus to me. OTOH, what JC was teaching, seeking the Kingdom, within, is as Adous Huxley said, the Perennial Philosophy.
Regarding historical accounts, there are many written records that have withstood scholarly and textual scrutiny to provide solid credibility to the Man Jesus, His words, and actions. This is the historical, 'Truth.' It is confirmed by early writers, some of whom you mentioned. Any departures, distortions, or aberrations from the historical Truth are 'deceptions, caricatures, or lies,' which are contrary to valid historical facts.
This is not a bad summary for a Protestant. You have unfortunately mixed-in a lot of Augustinian (St. Augustine -- a student of Plato) in your God-definition. Nothing you said about God is really anywhere in the Bible. There is also nothing in the Bible about the creation of the Universe. The Bible only gives an account of this Earth, Sun, and Moon. And the timing of the Sun/Earth creation is convoluted. This is why you don't use religion to explain science. Keep them both separate from each other. Your version of original guilt is no better or worse than the Jewish version or the Catholic version. This is how churches and religions hook their followers with brainwashing and guilt. You don't seem to appreciate that there are many different versions of Christianity. First there is the wording of the Bible itself. Then you have 3 flavors of Jews -- Ortho, Conservative, and Reform. Then you have 2 flavors of Catholics -- Roman and Eastern Orthodox. Then you have hundreds if not thousands of flavors of Protestants. More than all the flavors at all the Baskin Robbins' !!
Atheists are usually guilt driven or hate driven. They hate God and the notion of God because God did not do anything for them. Their rich mommies and daddies did everything for them. Most of them are born with silver spoons in their mouths.
Catholic (small c) means "cleansed" or "cleansing" in Greek. It is linked to catharsis. It has traditionally been used to refer to the Roman church as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants.
Ah, i see. You are correct. These are assumptions, for this premise. I am not attempting to PROVE any of the underlying assumptions, but merely to present them, as the defining orthodoxy of Christianity. Proving this set of beliefs is beyond my pay scale, at this time.. but so are most beliefs, regarding the Big Mysteries of the universe.
Jesus talks about a hell. He is referring to a place where evil persons will go after this life. It must be a real place. They are separated from God and his Angels there.
Fair enough. I will stick with science since that does address the "big mysteries of the universe" instead.
If God created everything perfect then angels rebellion and man sinning must be part of his perfect plan. Obviously those two instances would not meet the definition of perfect since if things were perfect they wouldn't have occurred. Is it possible that God didn't create man perfectly but to achieve that they had to go through sin first and in order to do that he needed an angel to rebel to create the sin?
As a Christian I am not afraid to ask it. What it tells me is that we don't know the whole story, not that the story we do know is wrong however. Perfection, like time, undoubtedly means something different to God than it does to us.
1. I don't see anything in this summary that any Christian, including Catholics , would object to. 2. God as creator is a constant biblical theme. 'Universe' is assumed. If He created all the stars, is that not our universe? 3. Augustine, Irenaeus, Paul, and Jesus can all be quoted in this 'God-definition'. How is this exclusive to augustine? You don't see any of these Divine traits in the bible? 4. Original sin is a constant theme in Christian orthodoxy, and was addressed earlier in more detail. 5. Denominations or 'flavors' do not change the historical, scholarly, and biblical exegesis of the manuscripts. They have an historical line of commentary and defense, from the earliest Christian writings. They have not varied, in over 2000 years of history.
You "believe" that your god made you out of mud. Science has identified that we are composed of 6 of the most common elements in the universe. Scientific knowledge outweighs stone age superstitions every time!
Lots of populorum in there. And lots of ass-u-me-ing too. You should try starting from scratch, leave all your brainwashing behind, start reading each of the two testaments carefully, then make a list of what YOU think GOD wants. See if you can figure out the real names of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit while you are at it -- first in Hebrew and then in Greek. Remember that English was not even invented yet until 1066 A.D.
