I don't usually like to share personal information, as they become ammunition for the hecklers. Suffice it to say, i had a spiritual experience, that has been constantly affirmed in the subsequent decades of my life, that convinced me of a spiritual Reality. It is a common path, that many have taken.
The moving of goal posts I'm referring to is not a historical thing (well, I guess it has happened throughout history too). For instance, plenty of people were happy to call Mitt Romney a Christian in 2012. The fact that Mormonism wasn't around until the 1800s is hardly an argument against that. The moving of goalposts is often due to disagreement between people (without them acknowledging the disagreement) it's not a malicious thing that one or belief is to blame for, or at least doesn't have to be. I was referring to the American founding fathers who were to a large extent deist. Like Jefferson who made an edition of the Bible with Jesus' divine nature edited out. It seems to me such deism is further from Christianity than Mormonism is, given how the deism seems to lack a Christ altogether whereas the distinction between Mormonism and Christianity becomes academic (what is the difference between believing in two different gods and believing in different interpretations of the same god?). Yet there is one push to accept the Founding Fathers as Christian while there is another saying Mormons are not. It seems to me, it has more to do whether one wants to associate themselves with a particular person/group, and less about any rigorous theological categorisation. I know, I'm not claiming that he's trying to pull a fast one. He said he was trying to avoid denominational issues. All I'm saying is that in writing about, as you say, "[what] just about everybody except the lunatic fringe can get behind", he has put his finger on denominational issues (the "lunatic fringes" being denominations too) despite trying not to.
The reason people were happy to call Mitt Romney a Christian when he ran for office was either they were too polite to say otherwise or they didn't know any better, probably both. However, as USfan has pointed out, if Christianity is A and the other religion is not A, that religion is not Christianity. The Church has spoken on what Christianity is and isn't - it's not up for a vote. And people like Thomas Jefferson don't get to make the call. Call Deism what you want but it's not Christianity. However, if you think about who and what the FF were, the state Church at the time was the Church of England, which later became known as the Episcopal Church after the revolution, and the Episcopal Church did not have a Deist wing back then. Finally, I think USfan was trying to avoid denominational issues for the same reason I do - because terminology and definitions are often used imprecisely, especially by laypeople. You can actually get into arguments with people who are supposed to agree with you over definitions. It's one of the reasons why I pick my battles here.
Romney is a robber baron. He hurt many people on his rise to personal wealth. Trump only hurt other rich, for the most part. Of the two of them, Trump is the lesser of two weevils. So everything worked out fine for the American people. And McCain is a moron. The past 3 presidential elections went just fine. I don't think there is enough evidence to convict Romney of being Christian. He gives away money to his church sure, but it is money he robbed from the working class poor or from the stock market.
You can be Deist and allow for a Christ. They are not mutually exclusive. Deism best explains religion in any sense, even in accordance with sound Philosophy.
The Deist God(s) sometimes make exceptions when They meet an exceptional human. But you have no basis to believe it is the same for anyone else. Better just to speak for yourself and not extrapolate to the general population.
I doubt there is any real confusion among those interested concerning what is meant by purgatory, praying to Mary, or the Pope. And, I suspect there are other differences that really aren't that difficult to ask about - what baptism means, the place of works, what it takes for a "believer" to be cast out by God, etc. You write off the existence of denominations too easily. Denominations exist because those who are well versed in the issues, who are dedicated to studying the bible in great detail can not agree on issues so important that a different, more "correct" denomination is absolutely required by these religious experts. While not everyone may know the reasons for the existence of each member of this large collection, the very fact of its existence remains as evidence.
Do you realize that Martin Luther was mentally ill? His objections to the Catholic church had to do with the sale of indulgences, not with Mary or baptism. Did you know that Henry VIII was a hard core Catholic until the day he died? Ever read Jean Calvin? He reads very Catholic, and I don't recall seeing anything about Mary or Purgatory in his writings. The reason, of course, is that until the 1800s every Bible had the apocrypha in it, which is where the scriptural proof for purgatory is found. You are not one of the people who are well versed in the scriptures.
And I'll tell you something else: I've noticed that any time non-Christians want to talk about denominations they always want to compare the lowest Church protestants to the highest Church Catholics, and ignore everything in between.
I have no idea what you mean by "low" vs. "high". I don't think of you as "low" ... or "high". And, I'm not sure where you think this is going after you declare that one must exclude everything outside of Christianity and then complaining about references to denominations. Variation within Christianity IS about denominations, is it not? It seems you may be working on definitions in order to ensure that only your answers are acceptable.
Of course you don't know what high church and low church means, that's the point. There is a whole universe of things you don't know that prevent you from understanding what it is we are talking about here. I often speak of "The Church", a reality that eludes non believers but no matter how many times you explain it they just can't get it. The point is that these things are spiritually discerned, and not in your wheelhouse. So if you insist on rejecting my answers, then ask me no more questions, you won't get any closer to the truth that way. I don't think you are looking for an answer, anyway.
This is a cheap and preposterous dodge, not addressing issues I've pointed out to you. I've responded to no reference to "The Church" from you or anyone. No question here has been specific to how much some Anglican favors ritual. While I don't see you as being open to asking OR answering questions, I don't particularly believe that fact alone disqualifies you.
Oh, don't bother me with this, I'm not buying it. You are just playing to the lowest common denominator with this rant. The plain and simple truth of the matter is that there are historical and practical nuances here that you are not aware of. Most of the many so-called "protestant" denominations are separated more by culture and history than they are by philosophy, yet you want to make it about some churchwide schism because it suits your purpose to say the Church is fragmented to the point where it actually worships different gods. Some of you have been trying to make this straw man argument from the beginning and I'm calling you on it.
Well then you have to ask the same question as did Pontius Pilate, and Plato, and Socrates -- Quid est veritas?
This brings up several points: 1. If you acknowledge a Deceiver, by what standard or methodology do you differentiate truth from lies? How do you know YOUR 'version', is not a deception? 2. Personal feeling about some historical Event seems very unreliable as an arbiter of truth. 3. Arguments of incredulity for the historic view, while positing equally incredible 'explanations,' without any historical or factual basis, seems like mere prejudice. 4. The sacrifice has been understood for many more millennia than our written records hold. Many ancient societies engaged in some kind of blood sacrifice. It was a foretelling.. a symbol of what God was going to do, that some ancient cultures seemed to understand intuitively. 5. Historic, biblical, eyewitnessed accounts carry more objective credibility than revised, feeling based accounts centuries later. 6. The foolishness of God is wiser and more powerful than the wisdom of man. If there is one factor of human philosophy and the quest for Truth that is underestimated, it is the work and agenda of the Deceiver. He is the father of lies, and exists to kill and destroy. His influence is clearly seen in this world, but he is a defeated foe. A balanced seeker of truth must avoid exremes, in either giving him too much credit, or not enough. Most people poo poo the existence and influence of demonic forces, and that is one extreme position. The other extreme is living in fear of spiritual darkness. Deception is alive and well in this world, and it takes Divine Intervention to break its spell over a person. We cannot save ourselves. That is why we need a Savior.
Both of these posts address the same issue.. denominations and splits within the Christian labelled institutions, which also spills over into individual relationships. Here are a few points: 1. Human institutions do not equal the invisible Church/family/people (cfp) of God. He knows those who are His. 2. Ambiguous concepts and speculations have caused real division in the visible cfp, and have caused needless and undesired division. 3. SOME issues are central to the faith. These are not mere differences of cosmetics, but are heretical and destructive to the integrity of the Christian faith. 4. The true CFP is not organized by man, but by God. The clubs, LLCs, and tax free organizations may, or may not have actual CFPs as members. The Mystery of the Bride of Christ is one of the more profound and deep things in the universe. I only briefly covered this under the 'Citizenship' heading in the OP. Angelic beings long to look into this, and grasp the mystery that God has alluded to. The machinations and maneuverings of man have nothing to do with the invisible church. This was a central topic in the reformation, where man's institutions demanded loyalty to them. But the cry of 'sola scriptura!' and the priesthood of all believers brought needed balance to the visible church, and preserved the Message for future generations. The visible church is what we see, but it is an illusion.. it is a mix of humanity, and is not the true bride. "In this church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance..." ~John Calvin So while the visible institutions may SEEM like the 'Church,' to the world, it is, in fact, an illusion, and is not the church at all. The manipulations of liars, deceivers, or men corrupted by greed and power have nothing to do with the 'holy catholic church, and the communion of saints,' as expressed in the Apostles Creed. Those are worldly schemes of power and control, and are deadly sins within the true, invisible, universal Church. Many creeds and statements of faith have echoed this concept over the millennia.
How do I know truth from lies? Well, christ had this analogy of the bad tree and the good tree. If a tree produces bad fruit, it is a bad tree, but if it produces good fruit, a good tree. Then being very familiar with the history of the christianity formed after the death of christ, which became the religion of the roman empire, and the evil committed in the name of god for the next 2000 years, yep, a BAD TREE. So, perhaps you should actually heed what christ said about this issue? For it will also allow you to discern what the Church was, and you cannot change its history. Simple stuff here. It was apparently the work of Satan. Its history evidences this. Good tree, bad tree. Of course you can tell christ to go and suck one, or call him an idiot. Whatever suits your beliefs, I guess. Yet you believe in this person, christ? Do you believe in what he taught though, that is the question . I would say christianity for 2000 years ignored him. For they had to.
What belief ? All I have done is given the extant works of Polycarp which does not support your "polycarp was a student of John" claim - never mind prove it. Then I gave the extant works of Irenaeus which refutes your claim that Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. The "Tradition" (and it is called "tradition" for a reason) that Polycarp was student of John is from Eusebius who is writing almost two centuries after the death of Polycarp. Eusebius is citing a letter from Irenaeus to Florinus but, we do not actually have an extent copy of that letter so we have to rely on the integrity of Eusebius - or that some later interpolation of Eusebius's citation was not done. This is a tall order given how common and accepted pious fraud was. ... and you can read further in his "very well referenced" link. http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c4.htm Regardless - the idea that there is some scholarly consensus is simply not true. What is interesting to note is that Eusebius did not accept the modern Trinity Doctrine. He did not believe that Jesus was "God" - God of Abraham - which was in keeping with the beliefs of most of the early Church fathers. It was Emperor Constantine that dictated that the modern Trinity concept become doctrine at the council of Nicea. Even so the Church fought over this for centuries after. Eventually the new universal Church either killed or persecuted such ideas out of existence.
Eusebius was only one man and so was Arius. They stuck together on Arianism as a matter of political expediency, and no, Constantine DID NOT mandate Trinitarianism, he couldn't have cared less, all he wanted was for the Eastern and Western churches to settle it once and for all - one way or the other - so he could unite the kingdom.
Per the topic, I'll do a summary of the OP, and contrast it with some of the more ambiguous or controversial doctrines that have historically been seen as divisive. Core beliefs that define biblical, historical Christianity: The nature of God, man, and the universe The Fall Redemption Citizenship; the People of God Deception Restoration I see these as common denominators in the creeds, reformations, and apologias in the historical, biblical Christian worldview. To contrast, I'll list a few other concepts or teachings that added to or contradicted these basic tenets of faith: Purgatory Pre, post, pan.. tribulation rapture Jesus was a great prophet, but not God in human form Jesus was a spiritual being, with only an illusion of human form Sales of indulgences A certain day is the only proper time to meet with God Only one particular English translation of the scriptures is credible You must keep the old testament law to please God A particular organizational administration of the believers is the only true Way All of the stories in the bible are allegorical, and are not to be taken literally Man is basically good God is evil and should be opposed Satan was a misunderstood good guy ..this list goes on and on, but i hope it illustrates the central point of this thread. There are many things that contradict sound Christian doctrine, and many things that have been added. The contradictions are 'not-Christianity.' The ambiguous add ons are either superfluous, positive, or negative 'enhancements' of the original. Enhancements is not the right word.. 'variations' is better, since we have little in the way of divine revelation to know if these additions are necessary, or a distraction. IMO, if it is not clearly defined in the scriptures, there is leeway for cultural or even individual interpretation and opinion. And, to use these differences of interpretation as tool of division conflicts with the overriding command to be one in love and spiritual unity. But those are really only issues in the visible Church, which is primarily corrupted by man. The invisible Church has no such artificial divisions.
I think you are transferring 'fruit' from an individual to institutions. Institutions and groups never produce fruit, only illusions. Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. ~Friedrich Neitzsche Jesus was speaking of individual 'proving' of faith, not some collectivist fantasy. When and where does any ideology make a nation of love, kindness, and kum-ba-ya unity? Only when a majority of the citizens are moral, and where there is a tolerable administration of justice, does a nation have any, 'good fruit'. You think our modern day stampede away from morality, faith in God, and toward selfishness, greed, and situation ethics has yielded 'good fruit' in our culture? No, if a majority of the citizens are moral, God fearing, and individually seeking righteousness and peace with God, the whole nation prospers and reflects the fruit you describe. The 'salt of the earth,' flavors and preserves the society they are in. But if relativity, immorality, corruption, and apostasy defines the Christian community, they have lost their mission and have compromised with the world.
The Catholic/protestant schism is plenty big enough to be worthy of notice. And, nothing I've said has anything to do with suggesting there being different gods. In fact, remember that it was YOU who wanted this limited to Christianity instead of including all those who believe in the Abrahamic god.
