"True Christianity"

[metis]

How many times do we see the words "true Christianity" or "true Christians"?  So often these are used as a way to denigrate those Christians and sometimes members who belong to other religions.  It smacks of arrogance since if I have "the answers" and, if you don't agree with me, you're not really a "true Christian".  Or it may be used as a slam against those of other religions based on a simplistic concept that one must be a "true Christian" in order to understand "true Christianity".  Well, let's see about this.

In order to establish what would be "true Christianity", we would have to:

1.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a God.

2.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God cannot make errors.

3.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God inspired the N.T. whereas it would be without error.

4.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that those who establish doctrines can interpret these scriptures without committing any errors.

Ah, but then some will say that with the power of the Holy Spirit, all of this is possible.  But in order to garner support for that concept, we have to add to our previous list, so we would have to:

5.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holy Spirit actually exists.

6.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holy Spirit actually will give people an understanding that's inerrant.

If the above were the case, then why do we see almost 300 Christian denominations and thousands of independents most of which claim they have a lock on "true Christianity"?  Or are we to believe that the Holy Spirit only favors certain individuals in certain faith traditions?  Since Christianity is so diverse, drawing such conclusions borders on the absurd.

But then some will come back and say that they don't have to "establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt" since such beliefs are based on a "true faith" and not empiracle evidence.  So, if I said that we can turn lead into gold based on my faith as such, would one say that I'm somehow right simply because I use the word "faith"?  If I said the world is going to end tomorrow, and one asked me why I believed as such, and I said that I just have "faith" that it will, would that likely satisfy them?

But let's go with this idea of "faith".  What's one's faith based on?  What evidence can be provided?  How does one exactly know if their "faith" is not just imaginary?  Many have used this arguement of "faith" to justify all sorts of atrocious acts. 

Now, I have no doubt that some will see the above as an attack on Christianity and maybe even religion itself.  It is not.  I think there could well be a God or Gods.  I do think Jesus existed and taught certain lessons especially about love, compassion, and justice.  As one who attends Christian services weekly with my wife, I see much good in Christianity as a whole. 

No, my concern is not with Christianity per se but with those who state or imply that they somehow are so certain that they're right and others who disagree with them are wrong.  If there's a God, I don't think anyone or any group can correctly claim a monopoly on the Truth.  In Micah 6:8, one is asked to "walk humbly with your God".  So, I think a bit of humbleness may well do us good, and maybe realizing that maybe we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves, or our denomination, or our religion could go a long, long way.   

[sferrari17]

You are right in some ways, and wrong in others.  I'm kinda short on time, so for now, I would like to ask you: how do you think the universe should work?  If there was a God, how should he have designed it?  What should he have done differently, or changed from the way things are now? Where do you, in your infinite wisdom, think that he made a mistake setting things up?

[Lilly]

How many times do we see the words "true Christianity" or "true Christians"?  So often these are used as a way to denigrate those Christians and sometimes members who belong to other religions.  It smacks of arrogance since if I have "the answers" and, if you don't agree with me, you're not really a "true Christian".  Or it may be used as a slam against those of other religions based on a simplistic concept that one must be a "true Christian" in order to understand "true Christianity". 

I think that within Christianity there is a concept of "true Christian" and "true Christianity" as opposed to "false Christians" and "false teachings" because this is taught by Jesus and his apostles, and is recorded in the Scriptures Christians use as the basis of our faith.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven."  Jesus also teaches parables which tell us that at the end of the age the Lord will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.  Jesus teaches the Parable of the Weeds where he explains that within the world the Son of Man will plant the sons of the kingdom while the devil sows sons of the evil one.  Even though they may look similar and grow together, they will be separated and judged at the end of the age.  The apostles teach us there will be false teachers among the people and we should discern what is true and what is false.  In the end Jesus will judge.

Unlike beliefs based on Eastern religions, Christianity doesn't teach that all paths lead to God and each one must find his own way to the Divine.  Christianity has always been inclusive in that it teaches that God accepts all men who come to him by faith, but it is also exclusive in the teaching that most will never do so and remain condemned.

True Christianity is whatever God and his Christ say it is. Man doesn't have to establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, my concern is not with Christianity per se but with those who state or imply that they somehow are so certain that they're right and others who disagree with them are wrong.  If there's a God, I don't think anyone or any group can correctly claim a monopoly on the Truth.  In Micah 6:8, one is asked to "walk humbly with your God".  So, I think a bit of humbleness may well do us good, and maybe realizing that maybe we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves, or our denomination, or our religion could go a long, long way.   

I think you're incorrectly pitting faith against humility before God.  Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you don't see.  To walk humbly with your God is to act modestly in behavior and attitude towards God, submitting to him in submissive respect.  How can you do that if you don't even have the faith that he exists?  No, having faith in God and being sure of his presence is what makes a man humble before him. 

[Acumen]

I also find it interesting that I never heard Metis accuse fellow Jews for being arrogant for their denigrating accusations toward Messianics for not being one of them. 

[sferrari17]

I just wanted to clarify my previous post.  My thought process made since to me, but since my questions were so off topic, I thought they might be confusing.  

Basically, you asked that all of the things you mentioned should be able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  What makes you think that anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?  More importantly, what makes you think anything should be proved beyond reasonable doubt?  If it were possible to prove any of those points using logic, either positively or negatively, then there wouldn't be all of this controversy.  Furthermore, if it were possible to prove these things, there would be no element of faith, and therefore no reason to accept or reject God (because you won't disbelieve in God if there is incontrovertible proof that he exists).  So, in other words, no free will, because you wouldn't have any logical choice but to accept God's, and therefore no choice but to do the right thing, which means no choice to do something different.  Hence my question: How do you think things should work?  It makes since to me, but it doesn't to you, so what do you think should be different?

[SquirleyWurley]

Basically, you asked that all of the things you mentioned should be able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  What makes you think that anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?  More importantly, what makes you think anything should be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Good points.  I would simply note that there is no point feeling compelled to accept something that isn't adequately proven, and that for some sorts of allegations/commands/assertions, we ought to have a very high standards of 'adequate proof' because the stakes are higher.  Someone who asks me to join a song/prayer group may not have to prove much to me, but if they want me to commit 10% of my resources to their church, they have a lot of proving to do, and if they want me to have my life turned over to their church's understanding of some ancient religion, they have come to the wrong person because there's just no way churches or religious movements, political parties, etc. offer adequate proof to warrant such control over my personal life.

In an aesthetic way, some notions are very appealing, very meaningful, symbolically rich, and productive in life, even if not totally proven, even if technically false when it comes down to most or all of their major claims/allegations.

[Adrian1197]

I think you're incorrectly pitting faith against humility before God.  Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you don't see.  To walk humbly with your God is to act modestly in behavior and attitude towards God, submitting to him in submissive respect.  How can you do that if you don't even have the faith that he exists?  No, having faith in God and being sure of his presence is what makes a man humble before him. 

If that's true, then why do so many Christians show blatant disregard and disrespect for any non-Christian belief?

[Lilly]

If that's true, then why do so many Christians show blatant disregard and disrespect for any non-Christian belief?

I don't know that Christians show "blatant disregard" or "disrespect" for other beliefs, they just don't think they're true.  I think that what the Hindu type faiths don't like is that Christianity teaches there's only one path to God. 

[sferrari17]

Good points.  I would simply note that there is no point feeling compelled to accept something that isn't adequately proven, and that for some sorts of allegations/commands/assertions, we ought to have a very high standards of 'adequate proof' because the stakes are higher.  Someone who asks me to join a song/prayer group may not have to prove much to me, but if they want me to commit 10% of my resources to their church, they have a lot of proving to do, and if they want me to have my life turned over to their church's understanding of some ancient religion, they have come to the wrong person because there's just no way churches or religious movements, political parties, etc. offer adequate proof to warrant such control over my personal life.

In an aesthetic way, some notions are very appealing, very meaningful, symbolically rich, and productive in life, even if not totally proven, even if technically false when it comes down to most or all of their major claims/allegations.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do your best to discern the truth.  I am merely pointing out that doubt is a part of life, and that you will never be absolutely sure (using logic, anyways) that there is or is not a God, or anything else metis mentioned.  Logic and reason should play a big part in everyone's spiritual life, in order to tell false teaching's from true ones.  Ultimately, however, a complete dependence on human logic is a path to failure.

[Acumen]

I think you're incorrectly pitting faith against humility before God.  Faith by definition is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you don't see.  To walk humbly with your God is to act modestly in behavior and attitude towards God, submitting to him in submissive respect.  How can you do that if you don't even have the faith that he exists?  No, having faith in God and being sure of his presence is what makes a man humble before him. 

If that's true, then why do so many Christians show blatant disregard and disrespect for any non-Christian belief?

What is blatant disregard?

[Acumen]

In order to establish what would be "true Christianity", we would have to:

1.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a God.

2.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God cannot make errors.

3.establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God inspired the N.T. whereas it would be without error.

Why?  Why would a Christian need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists when two people are disputing about being a true Christian?  Presumably, both parties claiming to be a true Christian already assume that God exists.     

[SquirleyWurley]

doubt is a part of life, and that you will never be absolutely sure (using logic, anyways) that there is or is not a God, or anything else metis mentioned.

Well we won't be sure by feeling our way into the issue, either.  We will just feel strongly and have an emotionally charged opinion or we'll be personally attached.

It is true doubt is a part of life, and we function with many doubts, many of the best things in life aren't matters of demonstrating truth but of of simply living our experience fully, or embracing someone else as a human being fully, etc.  These are things we can describe, but what is there to prove?

If we state some opinion about what is going on what's this what's that, if we analyze/categorize/speculate, then there are things that can be logically broken down and evaluated, evidence to be reconsidered, etc.

Why shouldn't we just have experiences, live fully, live well, challenge ourselves, and not worry about such speculations/analyzing/dogmatic assertions/deductions, etc., unless it's really practical?

[Adrian1197]

If that's true, then why do so many Christians show blatant disregard and disrespect for any non-Christian belief?

I don't know that Christians show "blatant disregard" or "disrespect" for other beliefs, they just don't think they're true.  I think that what the Hindu type faiths don't like is that Christianity teaches there's only one path to God. 

Not all Christians do this, but many so-called born-again true Christian folk become greatly offended when we non-Christians question their faith.

Here are a few personal experiences:
Boss asked on a Christian forum if anyone knew of a place or website where he could Islamic or Arabic originated rugs. He was told in a private message to omit the term "Islamic" because it was a "false religion" and the term "Arabic" for unknown reasons or the moderator would delete the thread.

Boss was also yelled at by a twelve-year-old because he believed in evolution. Said boy went on to say how evolution was arrogantly stupid. He even wrote a book on the subject. It was five minutes and seven pages of reading I will never get back... You can find it at Lulu.com under the author Alex Delborro.

Myers was also harrassed by a Christian for his beliefs in evolution. Only this participant refused to acknowledge the copious amount of facts and only proceeded in claiming Myers was an "evil false prophet here to corrupt the minds of new Christians with his 'lies'".

I was banned from the very site for asking Christians not to judge the Hindu religion so harshly, as they were claiming it was a false relgion that followed a dead god. I claimed that Hinduism and Christianity were equal in value, they kicked me out and continued in their efforts to teach people how Christianity is better than every other religion.

Myers was banned, ironically, for speaking out in a thread entitled "Silencing Christians".

Myers was banned in another forum for claiming God was a woman. To add insult to injury, the offending moderator mocked the very idea after Myers was disposed of.


I can understand that Christians don't agree with other religions. But why can't they recognize them as equal? Many people on this site are very considerate of other faiths compared to some of the forums I've been to. To some Christians, it's like them against the world. If you don't agree with their teachings, you might as well be from another planet... I don't understand that. Why do people think that way?

[Daldianus]

You are right in some ways, and wrong in others.  I'm kinda short on time, so for now, I would like to ask you: how do you think the universe should work?  If there was a God, how should he have designed it?  What should he have done differently, or changed from the way things are now? Where do you, in your infinite wisdom, think that he made a mistake setting things up?

You're escaping the question.

[metis]

You are right in some ways, and wrong in others.  I'm kinda short on time, so for now, I would like to ask you: how do you think the universe should work?  If there was a God, how should he have designed it?  What should he have done differently, or changed from the way things are now?

What do these questions have to do with what was posted?

Where do you, in your infinite wisdom, think that he made a mistake setting things up?

"Infinite wisdom".  Well, isn't that just a nice little slam.

[metis]

I think that within Christianity there is a concept of "true Christian" and "true Christianity" as opposed to "false Christians" and "false teachings" because this is taught by Jesus and his apostles, and is recorded in the Scriptures Christians use as the basis of our faith.

Lilly, with all due respect, where are the responses to the questions asked?  You walked around them and didn't deal with them.  The point becomes, in essence, how can "true Christianity" actually be determined since we can't even establish there's a god or gods? 

And what about the numerous Christian groups who differ from each other, sometimes significantly.  Are Unitarians pretty much the same as the Amish?  Are liberal Quakers similar to Southern Baptists?  Hardly.  So how does one determine which of the almost 300 denominations and thousands of independents represents "true Christianity". 

[Daldianus]

If there is ONE 'true Christianity' then why would more than ONE denomination in the first place?

 

[metis]

I also find it interesting that I never heard Metis accuse fellow Jews for being arrogant for their denigrating accusations toward Messianics for not being one of them. 

You've got to be kidding.  What kind of nonsensical rubbish is this?  As far as I recall, I've never commented on the MJ's, and so you read into that that somehow I ignore the arrogance of some Jews?  So, anything I never mention is to be assumed as being acceptable?  What kind of "logic" is that?

You certainly do not know me well enough to make such an absurd statement, and if you were to remember correctly that I have long considered Gandhi to be my "mentor", then I think you would have a logical answer to what you implied above.

[metis]

Basically, you asked that all of the things you mentioned should be able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  What makes you think that anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt? 

I never said "prove", and that's not a minor point.  What I am asking for is evidence and, at this time-- any will do.  If you can supply it-- fine.  If you can't, then maybe it's just best to say so.  IOW, if people are to have faith, what is this faith to be based on?  In order to somehow establish what is "true Christianity", we would first have to consider what evidence is to be offered, and then we need to discuss whether this evidence is reliable or not, and to which degree if it is.

[Daldianus]

The question to prove that there is a "true" Christianity is a red herring.

So there isn't a true Christianity?