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".

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 17 by Mithrae]

Perhaps not, but many atheists can and do accept the psychological core around which biblical narratives and Christian experience often seem to revolve

A major part of the "psychological core" is common-sense, down-to-earth humanism.

More accurately, humanists have (quite laudably) found and adopted a number of social and psychological principles which earlier folk learned through generations of painful trial and error... which some specimens with a particularly high opinion of themselves then claim is simply common sense.

A major part of the "psychological core" of Judaism and it's offshoot Christianity, is to hate your neighbours and slaughter them and keep their virgin girls for yourself and take their land, because you are "God's" "chosen people", and other equally misanthropic, homophobic, misogynous, believe or you'll burn in the flames of Hell, and by the way Jesus is going come back and kill you with fire and hail mingled with blood.

You didn't mention those.

Things always look better when one omits the bits one knows are just bad.

Killing neighbouring tribes to take their land, females and resources is very ugly but, if feasible, follows logically from the evolutionary imperative to propagate the genes of one's own relatives and maximize the potential of one's descendants. Those are the psychological roots which all human cultures have come from and, for the most part, have grown out of. Curiously, the premise of this thread seems to be taking the side of the fundamentalists in declaring such growth into more sophisticated views an abomination, a heresy.

- 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)

This New Atheist does not accept your notions here of Sin, Redemption, Salvation, Faith.

Fair enough. Far be it from me to question the tenets of your own belief system

Because, as I keep pointing out, Atheist Christians just don't like the look of the Christianity of their grandparents, and they are desperately trying to blow hot air into the plummeting balloon.

In some cases we're talking about the Christianity of their great-great-great-great-grandparents. For all that some like to pretend that their movement is some kind of fount of all wisdom, New Atheists are relative latecomers to the party struggling to catch up
"Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward."

[SallyF]

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39153121



"HE IS RISEN" is one of those phrases I consider a brainwashing trigger. And, I suggest, the younger one can get the believers reacting to it, the more effective it is.

In my experience, this supposedly supernatural event attributed to the Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish literature, is the very last piece of faith the faithful want to toss over the side.

They can live with being called "heretic" if they heave the divinity and the virgin birth (they are obviously fantasy tales) and the idea of a bloody human sacrifice to mollify Jehovah is just plain wrong in all sorts of ways.

But the "Resurrection" is fundamentally fundamental

The resurrection of the body is an essential Christian doctrine, as the apostle Paul declares: f the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (1 Cor. 15:13"18). https://www.catholic.com/tract/resurrection-of-the-body

Not so fundamental is the delightful notion that Christians will be bodily resurrected when Jesus comes back with those legions of genocidal angels.

Certain Christians still believe this is reality ...

Nonetheless, for a quarter of Britons who still call themselves "Christian", this is over the side too.

[SallyF]

One large denomination in North America recently chopped the word inerrant from its statement of faith. For years many of our most influential evangelical leaders have refused to deny it openly. Rather they have quietly chosen to refuse to affirm it. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-i ... rustworthy

Has "inerrancy" been surreptitiously slipped over the side too ?

heresy[ her-uh-see ]SHOW IPA
SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR heresy ON THESAURUS.COM
noun, plural her-e-sies.
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Tossing even one of the declared fundamentals over the side to try and keep the Christian balloon aloft, certainly fits the definition of heresy.

Tossing the lot out qualifies as Atheism, in my view.

Then again, we have been told that we really do have Atheist Christians ...!

Which bolsters my point that in the Great Big Game of Pretend called religion, one can pretend to be anything one desires ... and have it seem real ... inside one's head.

[SallyF]

At the risk of discordant piobaireachd, let me support my claims with pronouncements from certain "true Christians"

In this day and age, liberal Christians are heretics, pure and simple. If we look at the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, I think we can safely establish many liberal christians do not adhere to certain tenets (especially on church authority), and this becomes even clearer when considering prescriptions for Christian living offered in Corinthians and Titus. https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/ ... christian/

And there are DANGER signs to watch out for !

Back then I had never heard of "Progressive Christianity," and even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation. However, there are signs"certain phrases and ideas"that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles. Here are 5 danger signs to watch for in your church: Identifying the signs is not always obvious"sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing, but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power. https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-si ... ristianity

And there is no equivocation from this traditional group:

Progressive Christianity is a heretical group which denies many basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. https://www.monergism.com/topics/bad-th ... ristianity

But then again, I have never met a Christian who thought THEY were a false Christian. Everyone who is a Christian seems to be quite convinced that THEY are the "true Christians".

I think it's time tae hie awa an' hae a wee dram noo

[SallyF]

Christian Atheism:

An oxymoron for those who want to eat their cake and still have it ?

A vestigial veneer for those who've jettisoned the foundations of the Christian faith ?

An admission that the feet of clay of the Christian edifice have been exposed ?

A death throe for the hydra-headed monster that was Christianity ?

[Avoice]

Virgin birth? Even if he was born to a virgin on Mars what difference would it make? It proves nothing. It may make him special compared to the rest of us but that's it. When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the surface of the moon it didn't make him the Messiah.

Where do you get the idea that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin? That it's proohecied about him?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 26 by Avoice]

Strictly speaking, I'm pretty sure there's only two passages in the Tanakh in which a specific future individual is called 'messiah'; Isaiah 44/45 in reference to Cyrus (whose reign ushered in the construction of the second temple), and Daniel 9 in reference to someone who was to be "cut off" sometime between 60 BCE and 40 CE (followed by the destruction of the second temple). Obviously neither refer to a virgin birth.

[Elijah John]

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".

You seem to be allowing Fundamentalist Christians to define orthodoxy for you, why is that? How far back to you think those five so called "fundamentals of the faith" go?

And to answer the five "fundamentals" consider this:

1) Jesus is not God. (John 17.3. I Timothy 2.5)
2) There is no virgin birth narrative in the earliest Gospel Mark.
3) Notice there is no reference to blood atonement in the teachings of Jesus himself, who preached the mercy of the Father in the Lord's Prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables. Again, with no mention of blood atonement.
4) The bodily resurrection? Perhaps, Christians disagree as to the exact nature of the event.
5) Inerrancy? The Bible contains many as have been demonstrated on these boards time and time again. But so what? That does not invalidate the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration for us "heretics". Why should it?

[Elijah John]

Jesus as a human sacrifice just isn't selling these days.)

Nor should it. John performed "baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It's in Luke. No blood needed.

Also, "by mercy and truth (not blood) is sin atoned for". It's in Proverbs.

And "I desire mercy NOT sacrifice". Not "mercy and sacrifice". Jesus quoted the prophet Hosea for this teaching.

"forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. FORGIVENESS taught in the Lord's prayer, by Jesus himself, with no mention for the need for blood, certainly no need for human blood sacrifice. Notice Jesus didn't make any exceptions for the "bloodwashed".

The author of Hebrews contradicts Jesus and many of the Prophets, as well as the Psalmist and author of Proverbs.

The author of Hebrews was just plain wrong.

[SallyF]

The author of Hebrews contradicts Jesus and many of the Prophets, as well as the Psalmist and author of Proverbs.

The author of Hebrews was just plain wrong.

So, are we dealing with the "Word of God" here in any way ?

Or are we dealing with a contradictory jumble of human propaganda and fraudulent pseudepigrapha perhaps ?

It looks like a fraudulent mess to me.

It's no wonder Atheists and Atheist Christians have discarded most or all of it.