DEFINING Christianity: The Bottom Line.

coolbluehair · Post by **coolbluehair** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:33 am

How does the Christian respond when asked the following:

What is the BOTTOM LINE of Christianity, i.e. the non-negotiable, undebatable, absolute must "believe/do" that DEFINES Christianity as distinct among belief systems? What is it that an individual must BELIEVE or DO that establishes him/her as a Christian -- or identifies him/her as non-Christian if he/she has NOT believed or done this thing? What is it?

I'm trying to find someone on this site who will address this question.

hamilrob · Post by **hamilrob** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:09 am

This is precisely my point. I am also asking this SAME question, which is why I started this discussion. And as far as I know the only answer is that you "accept" (i.e. believe in, and accept to yourself) the "atoning sacrifice" of Jesus' death on the cross at Calvary, after which the Holy Spirit will come into you (different words are used to refer to this event) -- and only THEN will you be able to understand the Bible, because it will then be intepreted to you by the Holy Spirit from within you. But that will not happen unil AFTER you "accept Christ," which you must do by "faith."

Fundamental or not, this not only irrational, but unfair. If I want to own a car, don't tell me i have to buy it before I can understand anything about it. Why can't my rational mind be trusted to understand the bible? So I am supposed to relenquish myself to Jesus Christ and let the holy spirit along with the help of indoctrinating ministers, etc, dictate for me what the scripture means? That removes my free and independent chance to understand the bible for myself. If the bible stood up to rational criticism, which it does not, then it wouldn't need a pre-requisite of accepting Jesus to render itself understandable to the human intellect.

grunchley · Post by **grunchley** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:01 pm

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

Bottom line, we are saved by His grace, through our faith. We do not earn our salvation.

Faith is defined as:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

Perhaps reading the testimonies of a few Christians would shed light on how salvation came to be in their lives.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:27 pm

grunchley wrote: Perhaps reading the testimonies of a few Christians would shed light on how salvation came to be in their lives.

I was under the impression that salvation could only be guaranteed to have 'come' after death.

How can one who is alive be certain of 'salvation' having 'come into their lives'?

Isn't salvation or otherwise a decision that can only be made by god?

Is it not presumptuous of these christians in their testimonies to assume 'salvation'?

grunchley · Post by **grunchley** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:20 am

This site clearly states how we can be sure of our salvation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y005.html

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:06 am

grunchley wrote:This site clearly states how we can be sure of our salvation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y005.html

Thank you for the reference...but I was more interested in your opinion.

All the site you referred to did was quote the bible.

Why should I believe the bible as opposed to the myriad other 'sacred texts' available. They too offer 'plans' for 'salvation'.

If you are going to say that the bible is the word of god, I will ask how do you know. If you say it says so in the bible, it is a circular argument.
Many 'sacred texts' claim to be the 'word of god'. Why is your version any better than anyone else's

grunchley · Post by **grunchley** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:20 pm

So you want to debate Christianity, which is based upon the Holy Bible, but you don't want to include the Bible in the debate?

You seem to have made up your mind already, as evidenced by your responding to statements that have not even been made yet.

I'm done with this discussion.

starseyer · Post by **starseyer** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:38 pm

grunchley wrote:So you want to debate Christianity, which is based upon the Holy Bible, but you don't want to include the Bible in the debate?

You seem to have made up your mind already, as evidenced by your responding to statements that have not even been made yet.

I'm done with this discussion.

I think his point was that if you want to make arguments from the Bible, you ought to make a case that the Bible is more reliable than all the other holy texts that are available. Too bad you are done with this discussion--I just read the entire thread over the last hour, and I will be back to see what happens.

BTW, what of the charge that one cannot become a Christian without the Bible but one cannot really understand the Bible without being a Christian with the guidance of the Holy Ghost? I've heard the question repeated, but I don't recall seeing an answer to this. To what extent can a non-believer understand the Bible?

hamilrob · Post by **hamilrob** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:25 pm

Starseyer wrote:

BTW, what of the charge that one cannot become a Christian without the Bible but one cannot really understand the Bible without being a Christian with the guidance of the Holy Ghost? I've heard the question repeated, but I don't recall seeing an answer to this. To what extent can a non-believer understand the Bible?

It's a catch-22. The non-believer is going to see the bible through his/her natural filter of reason. The non-believer is unafraid to challenge what's in the bible. The non-believer is free to exercise doubt and use skepticism in a healthy way to avoid becoming indoctrinated and brainwashed by the scripture. Praying and putting the mind into a blind receptivity will allow the filter to disconnect.

There should be a distinction made between the non-believer who wants to believe and the non-believer who wants not to believe. The former may read enough of the bible to be lured into wanting to repent, be born again, etc. The latter will continue to research and find information counter to bible belief and continue to grow in basic knowledge and wisdom about the bible.

Bible believers know it is not easy to understand (accept) the bible without being committed to a belief in its inerrancy and nature as the infallible word of God. They know that the rational mind is going to dispute many of the claims, miracles, and teachings of the bible, as well as point out the obvious contradictions within its pages, so they tell you beforehand that you have to accept Christ, etc, remove that filter, and join in the fun.

Donations come later.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:48 pm

hamilrob: There should be a distinction made between the non-believer who wants to believe and the non-believer who wants not to believe.

Only two choices?
Why is it that you believe there are no non-believers with an open mind?
I say ther are non-believers with an open mind, simply seeking truth, not trying to be convinced one way or the other.
I think it is clear you say there are no believers with an open mind, and we can understand this. Conviction eliminates an open mind.

starseyer · Post by **starseyer** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:51 pm

hamilrob wrote:Starseyer wrote:
BTW, what of the charge that one cannot become a Christian without the Bible but one cannot really understand the Bible without being a Christian with the guidance of the Holy Ghost? I've heard the question repeated, but I don't recall seeing an answer to this. To what extent can a non-believer understand the Bible?
It's a catch-22. The non-believer is going to see the bible through his/her natural filter of reason. The non-believer is unafraid to challenge what's in the bible. The non-believer is free to exercise doubt and use skepticism in a healthy way to avoid becoming indoctrinated and brainwashed by the scripture. Praying and putting the mind into a blind receptivity will allow the filter to disconnect.

There should be a distinction made between the non-believer who wants to believe and the non-believer who wants not to believe. The former may read enough of the bible to be lured into wanting to repent, be born again, etc. The latter will continue to research and find information counter to bible belief and continue to grow in basic knowledge and wisdom about the bible.

This is pretty much the conclusion I'd come too. Believe in Christ

and then do what he says. Or, more clearly, do what the Church says that he says. And accept what your spiritual leader says the Bible says. And follow your own reason only up to the point that it contradicts what the Bible or the Church says. (The Church, in my case, would most specifically refer to the demonination known as The Church of the Nazarene in case you want to know where I'm coming from.)

I have greatly enjoyed this thread. The answers given by Christians only strengthen my conviction that Christianity is irrational.