Misconceptions about Christianity

[Burninglight]

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 God’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 doesn’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 Christ’s death, and many scholars—both liberal and conservative—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, “Another 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.� (quote from Lewis’ “God in the Dock.�)

7. The Bible has been changed or is otherwise not true to the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts—that is, the actual pieces of parchment or papyrus upon which St. Paul and others wrote the Bible—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.

[Goat]

What Christianity is suppose to mean it that one or more people who have the indwelling Christ in their hearts. Today it means so many other things. Mormons, IMO, are a nominal Christian cult. Catholics, which I was one mostly consists of corrupted Christianity; this is where they are practicing Catholicism that includes the worship of saints and Mary and many other unScriptural things. Nominal Christians can be someone born into a Christian family and don't practice living for Christ. Progressive Christians sounds untraditional to me

How can you tell who "has the indwelling Christ in their hearts?" Do you take their word for it, or what?

It is spiritually discerned. For instance, The Holy Spirit bears witnesses with my spirit that I am His. In the same way, I can tell who belongs to Christ. Discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

And what is the methodology are you using to distinguish Discernment from confirmation bias and 'fooling yourself'?

It is not a method; it's by faith which is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen. It is more sure that a known way. It is also one the the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, every human being is subject to error.

IN other words, you have 'Discernment' because you say you have discernment, because you claim 'the holy spirit' gave it to you as a gift.

That sounds incredibly egotistical to me.

[Burninglight]

What Christianity is suppose to mean it that one or more people who have the indwelling Christ in their hearts. Today it means so many other things. Mormons, IMO, are a nominal Christian cult. Catholics, which I was one mostly consists of corrupted Christianity; this is where they are practicing Catholicism that includes the worship of saints and Mary and many other unScriptural things. Nominal Christians can be someone born into a Christian family and don't practice living for Christ. Progressive Christians sounds untraditional to me

How can you tell who "has the indwelling Christ in their hearts?" Do you take their word for it, or what?

It is spiritually discerned. For instance, The Holy Spirit bears witnesses with my spirit that I am His. In the same way, I can tell who belongs to Christ. Discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

And what is the methodology are you using to distinguish Discernment from confirmation bias and 'fooling yourself'?

It is not a method; it's by faith which is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen. It is more sure that a known way. It is also one the the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, every human being is subject to error.

IN other words, you have 'Discernment' because you say you have discernment, because you claim 'the holy spirit' gave it to you as a gift.

That sounds incredibly egotistical to me.

Why? Some people have it and they don't know the Lord.

[Autodidact]

What Christianity is suppose to mean it that one or more people who have the indwelling Christ in their hearts. Today it means so many other things. Mormons, IMO, are a nominal Christian cult. Catholics, which I was one mostly consists of corrupted Christianity; this is where they are practicing Catholicism that includes the worship of saints and Mary and many other unScriptural things. Nominal Christians can be someone born into a Christian family and don't practice living for Christ. Progressive Christians sounds untraditional to me

How can you tell who "has the indwelling Christ in their hearts?" Do you take their word for it, or what?

It is spiritually discerned. For instance, The Holy Spirit bears witnesses with my spirit that I am His. In the same way, I can tell who belongs to Christ. Discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

So Burning Light gets to say who is a true Christian and who isn't? Let's say I meet another so-called Christian, Lightly Burning, and she says her spiritual discernment tells her that Burning Light is not a true Christian. As an atheist, how can I resolve these competing claims?

[Autodidact]

You do not have the ability to know what is going on inside another person. Being a Christian does not give you magical powers. You are deluding yourself.

I don't believe in magical powers. If the Bible states that discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that God gives to His children, how am I deluding myself believing that someone can actually have that gift along with other gifts such as the gift of healing, wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, prophecy, tongues, and the ability to interpret tongues?

But, other than that, you don't believe in magical powers?

[kayky]

You do not have the ability to know what is going on inside another person. Being a Christian does not give you magical powers. You are deluding yourself.

I don't believe in magical powers. If the Bible states that discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that God gives to His children, how am I deluding myself believing that someone can actually have that gift along with other gifts such as the gift of healing, wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, prophecy, tongues, and the ability to interpret tongues?

I notice you have not responded to my former post where I prove that the New Testament should not be read literally. No rebuttal?

[Burninglight]

You do not have the ability to know what is going on inside another person. Being a Christian does not give you magical powers. You are deluding yourself.

I don't believe in magical powers. If the Bible states that discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that God gives to His children, how am I deluding myself believing that someone can actually have that gift along with other gifts such as the gift of healing, wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, prophecy, tongues, and the ability to interpret tongues?

I notice you have not responded to my former post where I prove that the New Testament should not be read literally. No rebuttal?

What post was that. I didn't see it. How did you prove such a thing? I will look again

[Burninglight]

Burninglight:

non denominational
Could you please be a little more specific. What do you mean by could not have happened in the literal sense? Are you speaking of the of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I'm talking about all the "miracles" in the Gospels. God does not break the laws of physics. I believe the Resurrection was a spiritual event, not a literal one. Consider this evidence:

1. Paul never mentions the empty tomb in his epistles. He claims that his meeting of Christ was of the same nature as that of the other Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Since we know Paul had never met the historical Jesus, it is clear he is talking about a spiritual experience.

2. Paul did not believe that "resurrection" meant the reanimation of the physical body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50). This means Paul was unfamiliar with the idea of physical appearances of Jesus or the Ascension.

3. The original version of the earliest Gospel Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8a. There are no physical appearances of the risen Jesus and no Ascension. The later Church was so disturbed by the implications of this, that they wrote a new ending for Mark.

4. Second century Christian Gnostics believed the Resurrection was a spiritual not a literal event. They claimed Paul was their founder and did extensive interpretations of his epistles from a Gnostic point of view. If Paul was actually a Gnostic, everything he wrote about God raising Jesus from the dead would have been meant symbolically.

5. When the Nag Hammadi library was discovered in 1945, among it's contents was a before unknown book called the Gospel of Thomas. Many contemporary Biblical scholars believe Thomas might predate Paul because they think the earliest Christian writings were simply collections of Jesus' teachings or "sayings Gospels.". Thomas is a sayings Gospel and portrays a very Gnostic Jesus.

6. In his book, Liberating the Gospels, John Shelby Spong demonstrates how all four Gospels and even the book of Acts were arranged in accordance with the Torah readings based on the Jewish calendar. This strongly suggests that these writers were creating a unique Christian liturgy for the Church, not writing literal history.

I can show you an example of #6 if you are interested.

Progressive Christianity is not the enemy. Anti-intellectual fundamentalism is.

These things you speak of sound very strange to me. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that destroys Christianity, IMO. If He didn't die a rise from the dead literally, Christianity is a waste of time. I know Satan would love for me to believe that.

[kayky]

These things you speak of sound very strange to me.

I'm sure they do sound strange to you because you've probably never questioned the doctrines of your church. You probably think to yourself that because of the spiritual experiences you've had there it proves your church's teachings must be true. It doesn't. People from many different religions have reported the same kinds of experiences although they might describe them using the vocabulary of their particular religion.

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that destroys Christianity, IMO. If He didn't die a rise from the dead literally, Christianity is a waste of time.

Why does that have to be the case? What if the empty tomb is simply a symbol of rebirth? Wouldn't that experience in and of itself make Christianity worthwhile? Or do you think Christianity is just about getting to go to heaven when you die?

I know Satan would love for me to believe that.

You do know that Satan doesn't really exist, right?

[A Troubled Man]

You do know that Satan doesn't really exist, right?

Doesn't the Episcopalian church believe in Hell and Satan? Is it not in their doctrine?

[kayky]

Doesn't the Episcopalian church believe in Hell and Satan? Is it not in their doctrine?

I know this confusing to outsiders, but the Episcopalian church is very open as far as what individual members believe. Its congregations are becoming increasingly progressive. There are still members (especially among seniors) who hold to more traditional beliefs.