Five Fundamentals of the (Christian) Faith

[SallyF]

FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH

There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]

And those who disagree with any of the above doctrines are not Christians at all. Rather, they are the true heretics. http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/five_f ... _faith.htm

As - in my view - Progressive Christians toss more and more ballast out of the hot air balloon of their diminishing faith, more and more the feet of clay upon which the edifices of Christian faith were built are exposed.

Are Progressive Christians "true heretics".

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 32 by SallyF]

Do you consider those of us who are trying to understand and recover Jesus original* message "Christian Atheists"?

(* before Paul and company contaminated it with Greco-Roman paganism)

Jesus was no atheist.

Just because a person does not believe that Jesus was not God, does not make them atheists. There's still the Father. Surely you are familiar with the Shema of Judaism, which Jesus also affirmend.

Your position and your comments are dismissive, simplistic and offensive.

I don't consider anyone an "Atheist Christian" - I find the term a laughable oxymoron and use it only in parody. If you have difficulty with it, you will need to take that up with your fellow "Christians".

I too am looking for the "original message" of the first Christian Jews and their Jesus.

As you will have noticed in many of my posts, I posit the hypothesis that - in the complete and utter absence of any input by "God" - the whole Jesus business is just fraudulent political spin-doctoring on a failed Jewish Messiah, who did not a thing of notable benefit for his own people in his own time and may have been nothing more than a fictional character.

Exposing a fraud is only ever offensive to those who also know that it's a fraud.

Others are grateful that the exposure allows them avoid the trap.

[bjs]

Member BJS informed us that certain Christians are Atheists - and met no opposition.

I was unaware that I had done so. Could you point that post out to me?

[SallyF]

Member BJS informed us that certain Christians are Atheists - and met no opposition.

I was unaware that I had done so. Could you point that post out to me?

I tried unsuccessfully to find it.

I shall keep looking.

It was during a discussion of liberal/progressive Christians when you informed us of that. Maybe 10 days or so ago

[SallyF]

And, in my view, the first step towards Atheism.

Many progressive Christians are atheists. I suppose it's possible that there are some fundamentalist atheists who view religion with the same kind of taboo mindset as fundamentalist Christians view departure from their own orthodoxy, so liberal Christians end up attacked from both sides.

Sincere apologies to BJS !

It was Member Mithrae.

[SallyF]

Member BJS informed us that certain Christians are Atheists - and met no opposition.

I was unaware that I had done so. Could you point that post out to me?

My error entirely.

Apologies.

It was Member Mithrae.

[polonius]

The same old errors persist. Apparently a person is not a Christian unless he believes in a virgin birth of Jesus.

First of all, this is now recognized as an error in translation in the OT Matthew used. The term in Isaiah 7:14 is young woman virgin or not. See a reliable modern bible such as the New Revised Standard Version (Or some other where this error has been corrected).

Do you have to continue to believe errors to be a Christian?

[SallyF]

The same old errors persist. Apparently a person is not a Christian unless he believes in a virgin birth of Jesus.

First of all, this is now recognized as an error in translation in the OT Matthew used. The term in Isaiah 7:14 is young woman virgin or not. See a reliable modern bible such as the New Revised Standard Version (Or some other where this error has been corrected).

Do you have to continue to believe errors to be a Christian?

You have denied the Virgin Birth.

You have denied the inerrancy of the "scriptures".

I won't cast the first stone here, but it's worth considering what other "errors" there are in whatever passes for "Christianity", because, as we have seen, folks who still call themselves "Christian" have tossed most of the traditional foundational beliefs out of the belief balloon.

And Christianity's feet of clay are looking very exposed.

[polonius]

Shortening Paul we have:

"Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true. But put aside childish things."

Good advice!

And consider this. Jesus died about 33 AD and then supposedly rose and was around for 40 days. How many people saw him, how many did they tell about it, and what writings documenting this exist?

Having Jesus resurrected in 33AD but no actual witness testimony when the gospels were written 70-95 AD stretches the imagination a bit, doesn't it?

[SallyF]

Shortening Paul we have:

"Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true. But put aside childish things."

Good advice!

And consider this. Jesus died about 33 AD and then supposedly rose and was around for 40 days. How many people saw him, how many did they tell about it, and what writings documenting this exist?

Having Jesus resurrected in 33AD but no actual witness testimony when the gospels were written 70-95 AD stretches the imagination a bit, doesn't it?

Christians have very elastic imaginations, in my opinion.

God the Father is never shown to exist outside their imaginations.

God the Son is never shown to exist outside their imaginations.

God the Holy Ghost is never shown to exist outside their imaginations.

The "Scriptures" are never shown to have come from anywhere other than human imagination.

"Spiritual" things are never shown to be anything other than imaginary.

Imagining that a literally dead Jesus literally came back to life looks like a doddle to me .

[Mithrae]

Member BJS informed us that certain Christians are Atheists - and met no opposition.

I was unaware that I had done so. Could you point that post out to me?

My error entirely.
Apologies.
It was Member Mithrae.

I've been wondering if/when you'd notice that.

I don't consider anyone an "Atheist Christian" - I find the term a laughable oxymoron and use it only in parody. If you have difficulty with it, you will need to take that up with your fellow "Christians".

Please also note that Member Mithrae is not a Christian. Nor has he ever used the term "Atheist Christian," least of all with your capitalization. Rather than attempting to parody what Mithrae has said, maybe you could first respond to what I've actually posted:

• Mithrae in another recent thread wrote:

  We have been told on this forum that Atheist Christians are "Christians" and the term seems not to be an oxymoron ...?
  
  We have professional Christians who make their money from the faithful, who are Atheists ...

  Have we? Weird. But then we've also been told on this forum that babies are atheists, so it may be worth taking such claims with a grain of salt
  
  I'd be quite surprised if any serious scholar or intelligent person declared that one is not a Marxist unless one is in 100% agreement with every single opinion Marx held, or that one is not a Republican unless one shares all the opinions of the 18th century founders of that group. Of course fundamentalists do think that way, but more reasonable people recognize that social groups and ideologies can both diversify and evolve over time without necessarily losing their key identifying features.
  
  In the case of Christianity I would say there's three possible defining characteristics, which are not mutually exclusive but not necessarily overlapping either:
  > Being a 'follower of Christ,' obeying Jesus' teachings
  > Identifying with and belonging to a Christian community/congregation
  > Accepting common Christian beliefs and practices
  
  The fundamentalist approach of course is a very specific iteration of the third one - claiming that to be a Christian one must believe in the bible, for example - with just the slight problem that we need to know who the Christians are first, before we can identify common Christian beliefs. Hardly anyone obeys Jesus' teachings, so I include that mostly for the sake of completeness; that's presumably the most important defining characteristic, even if it only covers a few hundred or few thousand folk who actually do so! But for the billion-odd Christians of the various churches and denominations around the world, obviously the primary defining characteristic is identifying with and belonging to Christian communities. In most cases 'Christian beliefs' are a consequence of belonging to a Christian community - most obviously in the case of those raised in a Christian family - and while sometimes adult entrances to the community are predicated on reciting a formula of beliefs, often even that is not the case.
  
  Odds are that even today, most Christians have never read through the bible: Many Christians in poorer countries may not have access to a full bible in their own language, or perhaps may not be able to read at all for that matter, which obviously would have been even more true in previous centuries. So the obsession with that anthology of ancient books among fundamentalists - both Christians and critics - really seems quite irrational, and is largely a modern phenomenon.
  
  That said, I suppose it would be fair to say that believing the bible to be the Word of God or suchlike is a common enough Christian belief that it could be considered a sufficient identifying characteristic, even though it's obviously not a necessary one. Ancient formulas like the Nicene Creed outline no doctrine about the bible, but do include beliefs such as 'one God' and 'his Son Jesus Christ.' However as with modern fundamentalism, these ancient creeds were created specifically because many Christians at the time did not believe some aspects of them: They were created to label some as True Christians and others as the Heretics. So once again, short of adopting dogmatic assumptions for oneself, the only rational approach is to take those as sufficient identifying characteristics, but not necessary.
  
  I suppose a case might be made that outright denying the existence of any god and affirming a meaningless materialistic determinism could be considered a disqualifying characteristic. But a more agnostic approach - and particularly one of deep awe at the wonders of reality and humility in the face of the Unknown - is certainly regarded as legitimate by many Christian congregations (including some of those who actually follow Jesus' teachings to forsake all possessions, have no leaders etc.). By your own words and by the definition of many atheists, such a person would also be an atheist. But I really have to wonder why that is such a big deal for you? Is capitalized Atheism supposed to be some kind of exclusive club whose members aren't meant to be Christians? Or is your apparent surprise a consequence of inadvertently accepting dogmatic assumptions about Christianity?

This is not particularly complicated, or so I thought at the time. Short of actually accepting Jesus' teachings and lifestyle (which virtually no-one does), Christianity must be characterized primarily by membership in the community of Christians; it's impossible to make up a list of 'Christian beliefs' without first identifying who the Christians are, so while such creeds and dogmas and fundamentals may be useful as sufficient identifying characteristics, deeming them necessary characteristics to be a Christian is simply a form dogmatism on the part of the believers and the critics who do so.

Furthermore, earlier in this very thread I outlined what I would consider to be core themes around which biblical narratives and Christian experience often seem to revolve, which Christians may (and many do) consider to be more pragmatic and relevant than the indeterminate truth or falsehood of abstract metaphysical/theological claims:

• with or without the associated religious jargon...
  - Humility in the face of the universe/god
  - The centrality of love
  - The inevitability of shortcomings and failure (sin)
  - The necessity of grace and forgiveness (redemption)
  - The value of transformative experience and a 'new life' (salvation)
  - The importance of personal commitment and action (faith)

Besides noting that your own New Atheist belief system has certain gripes with religious jargon, so far you have really not addressed the very substantial positive core attitudes which liberal Christians - whether they affirm theistic beliefs or not - can wholeheartedly share with most other Christians back to the first century.

If you choose to arbitrarily accept the fundamentalist approach to how a religion should be characterized, that's fine I guess, though there's no room for further discussion there.