"True Christianity"

[metis]

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. 

You're still avoiding the questions.  If you don't like question #1, go to question #2.  All that is asked is to provide some objective evidence-- not "proof".

[Daldianus]

We exist, that is overwhelming evidence for a God.

Maybe.

But it's quite a stretch from there (a God) to BibleGod being this God. What's your evidence that this God equates to BibleGod?

[metis]

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

Then why have you used the term?  And I'm not asking anyone to "prove" it but to just establish what evidence do they have to give indication of what constitutes "true Christianity" versus "false Christianity".  

The real "red herring" is the rather obvious fact that no one is even attempting to offer any evidence whatsoever.  

[Daldianus]

The greatest impact on the world....which is also objective.

Uh, and why should this 'impact' be considered proof for the claims of the Bible? Isn't that just the argument of numbers?

[Daldianus]

You don't have to consider it proof, my point is that it is objective evidence.

So you're claiming that the argument of numbers constitutes objective evidence?

[Daldianus]

Impact, not just numbers.

And why should this impact (you've still not defined what you actually mean by it) be considered evidence for your God?

[metis]

How do you know that Gandhi was a man worthy to emulate?

And where exactly did I say that?  Gandhi was a man with strengths and weaknesses, and I do not agree with him in certain areas.  He was a terrible father by his own admittance, for example.  He had a rather short fuse that he had to really work on.    

[Daldianus]

How do you know that Gandhi was a man worthy to emulate?

And where exactly did I say that?  Gandhi was a man with strengths and weaknesses, and I do not agree with him in certain areas.  He was a terrible father by his own admittance, for example.  He had a rather short fuse that he had to really work on.    

BibleGod was quite short-tempered and angry at times too.

[metis]

I appreciate your honesty.

And I appreciate your appreciation.

[Daldianus]

Impact, not just numbers.

And why should this impact (you've still not defined what you actually mean by it) be considered evidence for your God?

[jacknky]

"Impact, not just numbers."

Right now I'd say the Muslims are giving the Christians a good run for their money.

But if we look objectively at history we see that religions come and go. The supernatural impulse carries on but the specifics change. Believers in all the thousands of religions that exist now or have existed all believe or have believed that their version of the supernatural is the one true version. Personally, I think it's time to recognize the obvious. No one really knows. (There. The elephant in the room has been acknowledged.)

I understand Metis' question. Repeatedly I have had thrown up to me in discussions on these boards that I'll never understand what's being discussed because I'm not a true Christian. So it seems a worthy  inquiry to ask What IS a "true Christian"?

It seems clear to me from the outside that a true Christian mostly is one who agrees with each particular Christian's denomination. To a Catholic a true Christian is one who abides by Vatican teachings. To a Baptist a true Christian agrees with their interpretations of the Bible. and so on. There is an exclusionary quality to monotheistic religions. Everyone who isn't a Christian is a heathen. Everyone who isn't a Muslim is an infidel. same difference. Both are worthy of scorn.

[Acumen]

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?

You never showed why they were relevant, Vern.

[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. 

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.

Okay, we can play this game.  Do you believe that messianic Jews are true Jews?

[SquirleyWurley]

Claims of 'true Christianity' like any claims for 'Christianity', involve a lot of subjective experience and evaluation, faith, etc.

If objective proof alone established it, that would be quite surprising, since they have emphasized faith and personal experience more than anything else.

[Lilly]

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? 

Whether there is or isn't a God is based on faith.  I believe there is a God.  I believe Christianity is the way to God.  The Christian Scriptures declare what we as Christians believe.  I believe they are an accurate representation of what Jesus and his apostles taught and you have no proof that they aren't.  I believe these things because God has revealed them to me, and you have no proof that he hasn't.  It is my faith and I believe Christ is the only way for a man to be reconciled to God.  I reject Hinduism and Islam as untrue.  To me they are false teachings.  Because of my Christian faith I am taught to love the Hindu and the Muslim, but I believe their religions are untrue.  They are not the way to God and eternal life. 

It appears to me that Gandhi accepted the teachings of Christ which fit into his world view as a Hindu.  But it seems he never understood the Christian message as recorded in our Bibles. 

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". 

I disagree with some of the teachings of the Amish, and with some of the teachings of the Unitarian.  I also disagree with some of the teachings of the Catholics.  But I'm not the judge of the people who follow these teachings.  God is, and he will judge me too. 

What I'm saying is that I have a faith, and it is not just in the teachings of Jesus concerning behavior, but is also in the teachings of Jesus to accept him as the Christ for the forgiveness of my sins and for eternal life. 

[metis]

(There. The elephant in the room has been acknowledged.)

Listen jacknky, I know I could lose a few pounds... but really! 

Shalom 

[metis]

You never showed why they were relevant, Vern.

I have, but I apparantly have to repeat it-- again. 

You and some others have referred to "true Christianity", so the most simple and direct question is exactly what evidence is there that you use to make such a charge?  If it's that which is closest to Biblical "correctness", then why don't you just state as such?  But then I think you know what my follow-up questions will be, which are alluded to in my first post with questions 1-4.  So far, all you're doing is attempting to turn the discussion around by making wild accusations and stating that somehow I'm unclear.  All you are doing is setting smokescreens and you know it.     

What I am NOT saying or implying is that one must not or should not have beliefs or faith.  But when one, as jacknky has pointed out, begins to throw around the term "true Christianity", it's most often used to attack someone else's position. 

BTW jacknky, if you're reading this post, I've lost a pound since I started so I'm now down to 799.  Anyone have a banana they can share?   

[metis]

Okay, we can play this game.  Do you believe that messianic Jews are true Jews?

You may see this as some sort of "game", but I don't.

To answer your question, yes I do consider them "true Jews", and if you don't believe me, try to find one single post whereas I stated or implied otherwise-- and you can even go into the BNet archives as well if you'd like.  I think Howie can well attest that I do not frequent the MJ boards, and I really don't recall even talking to a MJ, although it's possible I may have on the JD board over at BNet without necessarily being aware that this is what the poster was.  However, I would never claim that a MJ is not Jewish, but I might say that they don't represent normative Judaism-- or something like that-- but then neither do I.

BTW, one's "Jewishness" is dependent upon their birth or through conversion and not by having p.c. beliefs. 

[jacknky]

metis,
"BTW jacknky, if you're reading this post, I've lost a pound since I started so I'm now down to 799.  Anyone have a banana they can share?"

more of you to love? It's what's inside that counts? All I can think of are cliches.

[metis]

Whether there is or isn't a God is based on faith.  I believe there is a God.  I believe Christianity is the way to God.  The Christian Scriptures declare what we as Christians believe.

I have no one iota of a problem with you having beliefs.  But I do have a problem when one uses the term "true Christianity" to bludgeon others (btw, I do not recall you using that terminology, so my post was really not a response to you personally).
   

I reject Hinduism and Islam as untrue.  To me they are false teachings.  Because of my Christian faith I am taught to love the Hindu and the Muslim, but I believe their religions are untrue.

 

Both Hinduism and Islam believe in God (the name for God in Islam is "Allah", which has as its root the name "El" as found in the Sumerian religion that predates the written texts found in Judaism and Christianity; from that root word comes a Jewish name for God, "Eloheim"-- same God, just different names; also, Hindus also believe in God -- "Brahman").  So, when you state that they are "untrue", then you're essentially implying that a belief in one God is "untrue".  

They are not the way to God and eternal life. 

Notice what's missing from the above sentence-- "believe".  When you state what you wrote above without including the fact that this is your belief, it comes off as a slam-dunk fact versus a belief.  I know it's a nuisance (like myself  ) to continually write "I believe", but may I suggest you do so as often as you can since it creates what appears to be a distortion in what you actually may be attempting to communicate.  And, btw, I'm quite certain I slip up in this area as well, so I'm not throwing stones at you.

Shalom