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 49 by Mithrae]

SallyF wrote:

b

js wrote:

SallyF wrote:

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 would have considered it courtesy to me, and a politeness to others, if you had informed me of my error.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]

Many progressive Christians are atheists.

Capitalisation or not, I still consider the notion an oxymoron.

Traditional/Fundamentalist Christians who have not tossed most of the ballast out of their belief balloons are likely to agree, I suggest, and scream "HERETIC", very loudly.

For example:

Heresy [2] Heresy: What Is At Stake?
Who is a Christian? Can we call those who reject the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith - Christians? Liberal theologians say they believe in God, but what is unclear is why they do so and what they mean by God. They seem to take pride in how far they can push the theological envelope, as if the departure from orthodox theology is a guarantee of daring and originality. One can cite numerous examples of church leaders who consider themselves progressive and saviors of the church. https://www.reformedfellowship.net/here ... s-at-stake

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]

SallyF wrote:

b

js wrote:

SallyF wrote:

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 would have considered it courtesy to me, and a politeness to others, if you had informed me of my error.

You were knee deep in the process of repeatedly trying to weaponize the parodied opinions of "your fellow 'Christians'" (supposedly) against other forum members, after repeatedly failing to actually discuss my opinions with me. I'm sure most folk would consider it courteous if you would avoid doing that in the future. As a general rule I try to extend the benefit of the doubt to those who are respectful of others, but for those with an openly combative approach I see no need to help them out of their own errors

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]

SallyF wrote:

b

js wrote:

SallyF wrote:

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 would have considered it courtesy to me, and a politeness to others, if you had informed me of my error.

You were knee deep in the process of repeatedly trying to weaponize the parodied opinions of "your fellow 'Christians'" (supposedly) against other forum members, after repeatedly failing to actually discuss my opinions with me. I'm sure most folk would consider it courteous if you would avoid doing that in the future. As a general rule I try to extend the benefit of the doubt to those who are respectful of others, but for those with an openly combative approach I see no need to help them out of their own errors

Let's just go for politeness to an erroneously accused member then.

This combative New Atheist has the gloves on for the ballast-tossing "heretics" who claim they are "Christians".

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]

Many progressive Christians are atheists.

Capitalisation or not, I still consider the notion an oxymoron.

Sure, you've already said that. The question is whether this opinion comes from adopting a dogmatic approach to religion - trying to delineate necessary 'Christian beliefs' as an arbitrary first step, rather than identifying who Christians are in order to see what they believe - or from a rather special attitude towards Atheism as being a belief system to which Christians aren't allowed to belong.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]

Many progressive Christians are atheists.

Capitalisation or not, I still consider the notion an oxymoron.

Sure, you've already said that. The question is whether this opinion comes from adopting a dogmatic approach to religion - trying to delineate necessary 'Christian beliefs' as an arbitrary first step, rather than identifying who Christians are in order to see what they believe - or from a rather special attitude towards Atheism as being a belief system to which Christians aren't allowed to belong.

Christians, for nearly 2,000 years, have been believing that their leader IS God with a capital G.

Atheists do not believe in ANY gods.

oxymoron[ ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr- ]SHOW IPA
WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR oxymoron ON THESAURUS.COM
noun, plural ox-y-mo-ra [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] , ox-y-mor-ons. Rhetoric.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in cruel kindness or to make haste slowly.

Or "Atheist Christian".

I've never met a Christian Atheist.

More strictly: Atheist Christian is a contradiction in terms.

But as Humpty Dumpty said, words can mean just whatever he CHOOSES them to mean.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

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".

We have seen that certain folks who still call themselves "Christians", have dumped ALL of the above doctrines over the side of the plummeting balloon of Christianity.

According to the folks who wrote the Five Fundamentals, they are "true heretics".

However, we have also seen that "Christian" can mean just whatever one chooses it to mean.

Which means that "heretic" can mean just whatever one choses it to mean.

Atheists, on the other hand, have no choice to make.

We are quite clear on what we don't believe.

And we don't have a system.

And we don't have commandments.

However, if one of us stood up and declared themselves a "Christian Atheist", or a "Muslim Atheist", or a "Hindu Atheist"

When the rest of us had stopped laughing, we may - in true parody - call them a "heretic".

[Mithrae]

Sure, you've already said that. The question is whether this opinion comes from adopting a dogmatic approach to religion - trying to delineate necessary 'Christian beliefs' as an arbitrary first step, rather than identifying who Christians are in order to see what they believe - or from a rather special attitude towards Atheism as being a belief system to which Christians aren't allowed to belong.

Christians, for nearly 2,000 years, have been believing that their leader IS God with a capital G.

There were major Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd centuries variously rejecting such supposedly 'fundamental' dogmas as freedom from the Law of Moses (eg. Paul's Judaizers), the divinity of Jesus (eg. the Ebionites and Cerinthians), or even that Yahweh was God (eg. Marcionites and Valentinians). As I've already pointed out twice now, early creeds were created precisely because many Christians at the time did not believe some aspects of them; they were attempts, particularly in the case of the Nicene Creed organized by the Roman state, to create orthodoxy and enforce dogmatism. Thanks for clarifying which angle your opinion comes from.

[SallyF]

Sure, you've already said that. The question is whether this opinion comes from adopting a dogmatic approach to religion - trying to delineate necessary 'Christian beliefs' as an arbitrary first step, rather than identifying who Christians are in order to see what they believe - or from a rather special attitude towards Atheism as being a belief system to which Christians aren't allowed to belong.

Christians, for nearly 2,000 years, have been believing that their leader IS God with a capital G.

There were major Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd centuries variously rejecting such supposedly 'fundamental' dogmas as freedom from the Law of Moses (eg. Paul's Judaizers), the divinity of Jesus (eg. the Ebionites and Cerinthians), or even that Yahweh was God (eg. Marcionites and Valentinians). As I've already pointed out twice now, early creeds were created precisely because many Christians at the time did not believe some aspects of them; they were attempts, particularly in the case of the Nicene Creed organized by the Roman state, to create orthodoxy and enforce dogmatism. Thanks for clarifying which angle your opinion comes from.

As I've pointed out a number of times, the Christianities look like they are defined by Humpty Dumpty.

And I've yet to see one Christianity that did not think IT was the "master".

So, to directly answer the OP: it seems like everyone else is a "heretic" to someone else.

And Jesus does not step in to sort out the mess, because, if there ever was a non-imaginary Jesus, he was just a human wannabe who died like every other human.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

Well, I'm a progressive, liberal Christian, and I don't much care if narrow-minded fundamentalists consider me a heretic. Come judgement day, we'll find out who's right, and I'm rather looking forward to that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Goodness, is that a teensy bit of sanctimony I detect right there ?

Probably. I never claimed to be perfect, only right.

Best wishes, 2RM.