Misconceptions about Christianity

Burninglight · Post by **Burninglight** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:33 pm

1. Christianity is based on blind faith. Christianity is not based on blind faith, but rather faith based on evidence. Blind faith is superstition. Christianity is overwhelmingly supported by reason, evidence, and scientific inquiry. http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-tr ... christians.

2. We get to heaven based on how good we are here on earth. This is not true we are saved by grace through faith it is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God.

3. Once we become a Christian, being saved by Godâ€™s gift of grace, it does not matter what we do
This is not true. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, so shall he reap.

4. There are many ways to heaven, many paths to God. Because man is separated from God by his sin, the penalty for our sin had to be paid somehow for justice to be done. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Thus Christ is thus the only name under heaven by which man may be saved (Acts 4:12). http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-tr ... s-the-same.

5. It doesnâ€™t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. This is a nice idea, but does not hold up to logic. Christianity is so radically different from other belief systems that if Christianity is true, the others are false. One can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. Sincere belief in a cult, in a false religion, in atheism, or in the tooth fairy do not get one to heaven.
http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religio ... ristianity.

6. The New Testament was written long after the events took place and are thus subject to legends being inserted into the text. The New Testament was written entirely by eye witnesses to the life of Christ or by interviewers of eyewitnesses. Many of the books were written within 25 or so years of Christâ€™s death, and many scholarsâ€”both liberal and conservativeâ€”are moving toward the view that all of the books of the New Testament were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The one book for which some doubt remains is Revelation. But recent scholarship holds that even this book was written prior to 70 AD. This is the view that liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson presents in his book Redating the New Testament. This is also the view that conservative scholar Kenneth Gentry presents in his book Before Jerusalem Fell. So there was not enough time for the stories to have been developed into legend. Further, as professor of Medieval and Renaissance English, C. S. Lewis said, â€œAnother point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man [Jesus] as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.â€� (quote from Lewisâ€™ â€œGod in the Dock.â€�)

7. The Bible has been changed or is otherwise not true to the original manuscripts. The original manuscriptsâ€”that is, the actual pieces of parchment or papyrus upon which St. Paul and others wrote the Bibleâ€”are no longer extant. But, especially as regards to the New Testament there has been an unbroken chain of manuscripts from the originals. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts extant, including ones from the first and second centuries. Scholars have been able to correlate the manuscripts to know that the Bible we have today is faithful to the originals. See http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps. A good book on this issue is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce. Regarding the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, first discovered in 1947 were from the time of Christ and even to the 2nd century BC. These manuscripts predate the previously oldest known manuscripts by a thousand years. Comparisons of these texts with the others already in existence showed that they were essentially identical. This information confirms how carefully the texts were copied over the centuries and has given scholars tremendous confidence in the accuracy of the Old Testament we have today.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:38 pm

Burninglight wrote: I agree that salvation is being restored to our true nature in God, but having the wrong doctrines will not accomplish this. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you." It comes without observation. We either have the gift of eternal life or we don't. If we have the gift, then we have what we need to work out our own salvation.

Doctrines and beliefs are important only in the sense that some beliefs will draw you nearer to God, while others will draw you in the opposite direction.

The point is without Christ, according to the Bible, there is no hope of reaching our true nature in God and this is what is offensive about Jesus' message. Jesus said, "I am the way, truth and the life" He didn't say I show the way, truth and life. He also said, "NO one comes to the father except through me." I respect your endeavors to try another way, but that is just not my bag.

The fact that you parse out each verse so literally reveals your misunderstanding of Christ's message. In progressive Christianity through historical Jesus studies, we are getting closer to his original message. You don't have to settle for the status quo.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:12 pm

Burning Light: What makes you think that you have particular authority to pontificate about True Christianity, greater than the rest of us here?

Autodidact: Maybe, because I am a believer who is Christian and you are not!

(1) Why would a believer know more about Christianity than a non-believer. On average, atheists know more about Christianity than Christians, and in many cases this is exactly what led them to become atheists. I have often informed Christians about basic Bible verses of which they were unaware.

(2) You know that there are many Christians at this site, right? What gives you the authority to speak for them?

(3) Most of the atheists here are former Christians, many of them having studied theology, and some of them former ministers.

(4) On the other hand, maybe being a believer in Christianity disqualifies you from seeing it objectively.

Burninglight · Post by **Burninglight** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:48 pm

kayky wrote:
Burninglight wrote: I agree that salvation is being restored to our true nature in God, but having the wrong doctrines will not accomplish this. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you." It comes without observation. We either have the gift of eternal life or we don't. If we have the gift, then we have what we need to work out our own salvation.

kayky wrote:
Doctrines and beliefs are important only in the sense that some beliefs will draw you nearer to God, while others will draw you in the opposite direction.
Yes, you'll get no argument from me here.

The point is without Christ, according to the Bible, there is no hope of reaching our true nature in God and this is what is offensive about Jesus' message. Jesus said, "I am the way, truth and the life" He didn't say I show the way, truth and life. He also said, "NO one comes to the father except through me." I respect your endeavors to try another way, but that is just not my bag.
The fact that you parse out each verse so literally reveals your misunderstanding of Christ's message. In progressive Christianity through historical Jesus studies, we are getting closer to his original message. You don't have to settle for the status quo.

What can one misunderstand about "I am the way, truth and the life?" Muslims try to twist it to mean for his time He was the "way" Moses was the way for His time and Muhammad is for His time and there will be no other messengers. I point out to Muslims that Jesus didn't say I show the way or truth; he said I am. He said "Before Abraham was I am." The Jews wanted to stone Him for it. So tell me what is the progressive view of Jesus saying "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He" IMHO, the progressive view of Jesus is spiritually dangerous and part of the New Age Movement

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:02 pm

What can one misunderstand about "I am the way, truth and the life?" Muslims try to twist it to mean for his time He was the "way" Moses was the way for His time and Muhammad is for His time and there will be no other messengers. I point out to Muslims that Jesus didn't say I show the way or truth; he said I am. He said "Before Abraham was I am." The Jews wanted to stone Him for it. So tell me what is the progressive view of Jesus saying "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He" IMHO, the progressive view of Jesus is spiritually dangerous and part of the New Age Movement

I have found that many fundamentalists label everything they don't understand "New Age.". It is a meaningless label.

Progressive Christianity is not dangerous. It is liberating.

You have to understand that much of what we find in the Gospels is metaphorical and symbolic in nature. Once you realize this, you don't have to twist anything.

Burninglight · Post by **Burninglight** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:03 pm

Autodidact wrote:
Burning Light: What makes you think that you have particular authority to pontificate about True Christianity, greater than the rest of us here?

Autodidact: Maybe, because I am a believer who is Christian and you are not!
(1) Why would a believer know more about Christianity than a non-believer. On average, atheists know more about Christianity than Christians, and in many cases this is exactly what led them to become atheists. I have often informed Christians about basic Bible verses of which they were unaware.

(2) You know that there are many Christians at this site, right? What gives you the authority to speak for them?

(3) Most of the atheists here are former Christians, many of them having studied theology, and some of them former ministers.
(4) On the other hand, maybe being a believer in Christianity disqualifies you from seeing it objectively.

1. I agree there are atheists that know more about about Christianity than nominal Christians.
2. I am not speaking for Christians that have progressive views of Christianity, and I don't hear traditional Biblical Christians disagreeing with my message.
3. For them I refer them to Gal 3 in the Bible.
4. If I saw subjectively only, I would have remained Catholic. The point is you're not a Christian now nor are the atheists; so, they really shouldn't speak for Christianity.
Everyone is subjective to a point. That doesn't mean what they believe is wrong

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:24 pm

Burning Light: What makes you think that you have particular authority to pontificate about True Christianity, greater than the rest of us here?

Autodidact: Maybe, because I am a believer who is Christian and you are not!

(1) Why would a believer know more about Christianity than a non-believer. On average, atheists know more about Christianity than Christians, and in many cases this is exactly what led them to become atheists. I have often informed Christians about basic Bible verses of which they were unaware.

(2) You know that there are many Christians at this site, right? What gives you the authority to speak for them?

(3) Most of the atheists here are former Christians, many of them having studied theology, and some of them former ministers.
(4) On the other hand, maybe being a believer in Christianity disqualifies you from seeing it objectively.[/quote]

1. I agree there are atheists that know more about about Christianity than nominal Christians.

What is a "nominal Christian," and who gets to decide?

2. I am not speaking for Christians that have progressive views of Christianity, and I don't hear traditional Biblical Christians disagreeing with my message.

Then why did you say that your thread was about Christianity in general. Didn't you mean "misconceptions about Burning Light's version of Christianity?" Or are you under the impression that yours is the only one?

3. For them I refer them to Gal 3 in the Bible.

What would make you think they're not already familiar with it. The difference, is, they don't agree with it.

4. If I saw subjectively only, I would have remained Catholic. The point is you're not a Christian now nor are the atheists; so, they really shouldn't speak for Christianity.

You don't see subjectivity in your world view? What a shock.

We're not talking about speaking FOR Christianity, surely you don't pretend to be in a position to do that? We're talking about speaking about Christianity, a subject about which I know at least as much as you. I submit that much like HaLi and Islam, I am in a better position to correct your misconceptions about Christianity than you are mine.

Everyone is subjective to a point. That doesn't mean what they believe is wrong

Who said anything about your beliefs being wrong? We're just talking about what Christianity is and is not, and your temerity in asserting that you are an authority on the subject.

btw, I notice already another Christian who completely disagrees with you about that.

Burninglight · Post by **Burninglight** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Autodidact wrote:
Burning Light: What makes you think that you have particular authority to pontificate about True Christianity, greater than the rest of us here?

Autodidact: Maybe, because I am a believer who is Christian and you are not!
(1) Why would a believer know more about Christianity than a non-believer. On average, atheists know more about Christianity than Christians, and in many cases this is exactly what led them to become atheists. I have often informed Christians about basic Bible verses of which they were unaware.

(2) You know that there are many Christians at this site, right? What gives you the authority to speak for them?

(3) Most of the atheists here are former Christians, many of them having studied theology, and some of them former ministers.
(4) On the other hand, maybe being a believer in Christianity disqualifies you from seeing it objectively.

1. I agree there are atheists that know more about about Christianity than nominal Christians.

What is a "nominal Christian," and who gets to decide?

2. I am not speaking for Christians that have progressive views of Christianity, and I don't hear traditional Biblical Christians disagreeing with my message.

Then why did you say that your thread was about Christianity in general. Didn't you mean "misconceptions about Burning Light's version of Christianity?" Or are you under the impression that yours is the only one?

3. For them I refer them to Gal 3 in the Bible.

What would make you think they're not already familiar with it. The difference, is, they don't agree with it.

4. If I saw subjectively only, I would have remained Catholic. The point is you're not a Christian now nor are the atheists; so, they really shouldn't speak for Christianity.

You don't see subjectivity in your world view? What a shock.

We're not talking about speaking FOR Christianity, surely you don't pretend to be in a position to do that? We're talking about speaking about Christianity, a subject about which I know at least as much as you.

Everyone is subjective to a point. That doesn't mean what they believe is wrong

We're just talking about what Christianity is and is not, and your temerity in asserting that you are an authority on the subject.

Autodidact wrote: Who said anything about your beliefs being wrong? I submit that much like HaLi and Islam, I am in a better position to correct your misconceptions about Christianity than you are mine.

btw, I notice already another Christian who completely disagrees with you about that.

Okay, what is it that you can correct in my conception of Christianity and which Christian disagrees with me that doesn't have a progressive view of Christianity? If my beliefs are not what you are challenging as being wrong, then what's the problem?
You really don't know what nominal Christians are?

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:23 pm

A nominal Christian is one that is Christian in name only without a serious approach to practicing Christianity. You seem to place all progressive Christians in this category. You couldn't be more wrong. You are the one living in the dark, and you don't even know it yet. But you seem like an intelligent guy. If nothing else, I have planted the seeds of wisdom here.

Burninglight · Post by **Burninglight** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:39 pm

kayky wrote: A nominal Christian is one that is Christian in name only without a serious approach to practicing Christianity. You seem to place all progressive Christians in this category. You couldn't be more wrong. You are the one living in the dark, and you don't even know it yet. But you seem like an intelligent guy. If nothing else, I have planted the seeds of wisdom here.

No where did I say a progressive Christian was a nominal one! What seeds of wisdom are you referring to?
How I am I living in the dark?
I have the historical Jesus in my heart, and He is the light of my life and the world! What darkness are you referring to?

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:47 pm

Burninglight wrote: No where did I say a progressive Christian was a nominal one! What seeds of wisdom are you referring to?
How I am I living in the dark?
I have the historical Jesus in my heart, and He is the light of my life and the world! What darkness are you referring to?

I have no doubt that your experience of Christ is real. At some point, however, you're going to realize that many of the events in the Gospels could not possibly have happened in the literal sense. At that point one of two things will happen. Either you will lose your faith or you will make a greater attempt to figure out what the Gospels are saying.

I'm still curious. What is your denomination?