How Can A Reasonable Person Take Christianity Seriously (agnostic, Islam, Muslims)

[KJH89]

Ultimately, there is no proof of the god mentioned in the Bible. I think it is really that easy, but obviously, it isn't for some people.

[JuniPearl]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

30,000 denominations. 30,000 flavors of ice cream. Yet we are all, when you get down to it, are still ice cream! Is vanilla flavored ice cream true ice cream? Is strawberry ice cream false Ice cream? What about Rocky road? Despite the face it contains nuts and marshmallows, one cannot deny that it is Ice Cream.

It doesn't matter what religion one claims to be, if they aren't living according to the Bible then we are not all ONE. In fact, there is only one true religion. And that's the doctrine. So it doesn't matter what the title of your religion is or what organization you fall under.

I don't see how the analogy of ice cream can be used to explain our different religious beliefs and how we are all Christians when we get down to it. Which is exactly why TroutDude started this thread: How Can A Reasonable Person Take Christianity Seriously. I would not be able to take Christianity seriously if the Bible had 30,000 different beliefs on what it took to be a Christian and how to get to Heaven.

Let me use your analogy to show you what I'm saying..

The original recipe for vanilla ice cream is the doctrine in the Bible - which is what we call "Christianity".
You say there are 30,000 denoms. But did you know these denoms all believe in something different? How can they believe something different if the doctrine never changes? But I'll still use this analogy anyway...

You take that recipe for vanilla ice cream and in order to make 30,000 other flavors (30,000 denoms) you would have to tweak that original recipe. You would have to add ingredients, artificial flavoring, preservatives and so on. By the time you get the required flavor, it resembles NOTHING to the original flavor in which it came from. The only true ice cream is the vanilla ice cream in its original form that came from the original recipe.

-Is strawberry ice cream false ice cream? Generally speaking, NO. But spiritually speaking, if you added to or took away from it's original form, YES, it's false.

-Is rocky rode false ice cream? Generally speaking, NO. But spiritually speaking, if you added to or took away from it's original form, YES, it's false.

I think you get the point I'm trying to make. This was in no way an attack on you, and I'm not speaking directly to you. I'm speaking to everyone who feels Christianity can be found in 30,000 denominations. If their beliefs aren't according to the doctrine the Bible teaches on, they are not a Christian at all. THIS is why I hate being lumped into the same category as everyone else who claims to be a Christian. How am I to reach the lost and lead others to Christ when the world is so sick and tired of "Christianity" and their mixture of beliefs? The world sees how certain Christians do not practice what they preach. They say one thing yet do another. You must be instant in season and out of season! There is only one form of Christianity and that is the doctrine in the Bible, all others are false.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is the same kind of equivocating engaged in by atheists who don't want to be atheists. Belief in God is a component of religion . . . but there are many non-religious believers in God. Religion is far more extensive than a mere belief in the existence of God . . . and you know it. How difficult is it really to simply acknowledge error on your part?

Originally Posted by Shirina

The fact that you make the claim that there is only ONE god already proves that you have the beginnings of a religion at the very least.
The moment you begin ascribing known traits to an admittedly unknowable entity, you begin to merrily flounce your way down the road of religious beleif.

When you claim NOT to believe in any gods . . . "you begin to merrily flounce your way down the road" to asserting there is absolutely no God, period. Why the reluctance to acknowledge it? Why make such niggling distinctions in atheism and not acknowledge any distinctions at all with respect to defending (or not) a religion?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Any belief in a deity accompanied by descriptions of the nature of that deity, is a religion. It is not numbers which make it so, merely the belief.
lovesMountains postulates a deity and postulates that this deity is perfect.
Presto...a religious belief. Nothing else is required although commonly, a great deal more accompanies the basic assertion. The absence of that great deal more does not render it non religious in nature.

A "religious belief" in your schema is NOT a religion, per se . . . and to fail to acknowledge that distinction is mere baiting and pedantry. Why are some atheists so reluctant to ever acknowledge error? Is their self-confidence so tied to their views that their egos cannot tolerate any cracks in the foundation of their atheism that they nitpick the details to death.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

A "religious belief" in your schema is NOT a religion, per se . . . and to fail to acknowledge that distinction is mere baiting and pedantry. Why are some atheists so reluctant to ever acknowledge error? Is their self-confidence so tied to their views that their egos cannot tolerate any cracks in the foundation of their atheism that they nitpick the details to death.

This isn't argument, it is characterization of argument. I suppose that is all that you have.

I refer you to my previous posts for the explanation.

[JuniPearl]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

when there are so very many factions who disagree so vigorously with each other?

Hearing them argue over biblical minutiae like it really matters just sours the whole soup for me.

Is the fact there are so very many different flavours the real secret to its longevity as a belief system?

The comments and posts being made on this thread is a great example of why NO ONE can take Christianity seriously!!! There should NOT be an argument because there's only one way to believe. There should NOT be different flavors because the Bible does not have different "flavors". The Bible is not flawed, man is flawed. To understand His word you must become one with Him!

I do not lean on my "religion" to save me. It's a title, not what I believe in. If my "religion" were to change its beliefs tomorrow, I would leave and find a different "religion" that practices the TRUE doctrine in the Bible.

Doctrine simply means the teaching of God’s Word. In our day most people do not want sound doctrine, but they want preachers who will make them feel good (II Timothy 4:3). Nevertheless, we must love, cherish, and obey the Word of God. Merely knowing and accepting the truth is not enough; in order to escape deception and condemnation we must have a love for the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10-12).

A sincere, prayerful study of biblical doctrine will enhance spirituality. In fact, true spirituality can only develop from a solid understanding of God’s Word. The truth sets us free spiritually (John 8:32). The more we comprehend divine principles, the more God’s power will operate in our lives and in our churches.

By becoming established in truth, we fulfill the scriptural admonitions:
1. To be studious (diligent) workers approved of God, who are not ashamed but who rightly divide (correctly handle) the Word of truth (II Timothy 2:15)
2. To use Scripture profitably for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16)
3. To be strong in our beliefs rather than tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14)
4. To give answers to everyone who asks about our faith (I Peter 3:15)

Some suggest that study deadens spirituality, but a sincere, prayerful study of biblical doctrine will enhance spirituality. In fact, true spirituality can only develop from a solid understanding of God’s Word. The truth sets us free spiritually (John 8:32). The more we comprehend divine principles, the more God’s power will operate in our lives and in our churches.

Another assumption is that there is little connection between belief and conduct. To the contrary, inadequate or false views will definitely affect our choices and actions. The more we assimilate divine principles, the more Christ-like we will become in daily life.

The way to attain maturity in the faith is to have a balance of doctrine and spirituality. We must be zealous to hear, read, and study God’s Word, and we must be equally zealous to pray, fast, worship God, and have fellowship with one another.

What important doctrines did the apostles proclaim? What should we believe, obey, and love? Look at the apostle Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost. It is important for several reasons: it was the first sermon of the New Testament church (after the outpouring of the Spirit), Jesus had ordained Peter to open the doors of the kingdom of heaven with this message, it had the simultaneous support of all twelve apostles, and it succinctly proclaims how to enter the New Testament church.

The doctrine of God: There is one true God, as proclaimed in the Old Testament, and in the last days He wants to pour out His Spirit upon everyone. (See Acts 2:17; Deuteronomy 6:4.)

The doctrine of Jesus Christ: Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for our salvation. He is both Lord and Messiah—both the one true God and the sinless, perfect, anointed Man through whom God reveals Himself to us. In other words, Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, manifested in flesh to be our Savior. (See Acts 2:21-36; Colossians 2:9-10.)

The doctrine of salvation: We enter into the New Testament church through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of tongues. (See Acts 2:1-4, 36-39; 11:13-17.)

The doctrine of holiness and Christian living: We must separate ourselves from sin and worldly values and dedicate ourselves to God and His will. The new life of holiness will transform us both inwardly and outwardly. It is characterized by prayer, fasting, fellowship, giving, joyful worship, miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and evangelism. (See Acts 2:40, 42-47; Hebrews 12:14.)

The doctrine of eternal judgment: The Lord is coming back for His people. The righteous will inherit eternal life; the unrighteous will inherit eternal death. (See Acts 2:19-21; Revelation 22:12-21.)

***Because many people don't believe in one God, I will list additional scriptures***
God is absolutely and indivisibly one (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20). In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the self-revelation of the one God, the incarnation of the full, undivided Godhead (John 20:28; I Timothy 3:16).

God has revealed Himself as Father (in parental relationship to humanity), in the Son (in human flesh), and as the Holy Spirit (in spiritual action). (See Deuteronomy 32:6 and Isaiah 63:16; Luke 1:35 and Galatians 4:4; Genesis 1:2 and Acts 1:8.) The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons.

Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to complete humanity.

Jesus possessed all elements of authentic humanity as originally created by God, without sin. Thus we can speak of Jesus as human in body, soul, spirit, mind, and will. (See Matthew 26:38; Luke 2:40; 22:42; 23:46; Philippians 2:5.) According to the flesh, Jesus was the biological descendant of Adam and Eve, Abraham, David, and Mary. (See Genesis 3:15; Romans 1:3; Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17; 5:7-8.) We should not speak of two spirits in Jesus, however, but of one Spirit in which deity and humanity are joined.

Christ’s humanity means that everything we humans can say of ourselves, we can say of Jesus in His earthly life, except for sin. In every way that we relate to God, Jesus related to God, except that He did not need to repent or be born again. Thus, when Jesus prayed, submitted His will to the Father, and spoke about God, He simply acted in accordance with His genuine humanity.

As Jehovah manifested in the flesh, Jesus is the only Savior (Isaiah 45:21-23; Matthew 1:21-23). Thus, Jesus is the only name given for our salvation (Acts 4:12). The Father was revealed to the world in the name of Jesus, the Son was given the name of Jesus at birth, and the Holy Spirit comes to believers in the name of Jesus. (See Matthew 1:21; John 5:43; 14:26; 17:6.) Thus, the apostles correctly fulfilled Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” by baptizing all converts with the invocation of the name of Jesus.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

When you claim NOT to believe in any gods . . . "you begin to merrily flounce your way down the road" to asserting there is absolutely no God, period. Why the reluctance to acknowledge it? Why make such niggling distinctions in atheism and not acknowledge any distinctions at all with respect to defending (or not) a religion?
A "religious belief" in your schema is NOT a religion, per se . . . and to fail to acknowledge that distinction is mere baiting and pedantry. Why are some atheists so reluctant to ever acknowledge error? Is their self-confidence so tied to their views that their egos cannot tolerate any cracks in the foundation of their atheism that they nitpick the details to death.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

This isn't argument, it is characterization of argument. I suppose that is all that you have.

Well if you continue to edit my posts you cannot help but miss the salient points. I understand the "guilt-by-association" desire to inexorably connect belief in God (theism) with the absurd religious beliefs ABOUT God within the myriad religions (past and present). But they are separate issues entirely. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that is similar to the atheists' reluctance to acknowledge that absolutely no God exists . . . nitpicking niggling distinctions.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

when there are so very many factions who disagree so vigorously with each other?

Well, since I only take one of them seriously, I'm managing fine.

[Northern Matt]

Those who believe in religion are still in an 8 year old phase. They grew out of Santa, Tooth Fairy, Boogeyman, Unicorns and everything else you are told as a child to make things seem sweeter than they really are, but one thing remains, and one thing is forced down their throats until they believe every single word told to them... religion.

Whether that be a Muslim child, Buddist, Sikh, Christian or Jewish, they are all forced onto children for them to 'believe' and have 'faith' in a 'God'. Yet, the irony of them to undoubtedly laugh at someone who believes in Santa aged 27 is on a massive scale.

Why should these Fairy Tales and these myths still continue unlike the others. There is just as much evidence for Santa as there is a 'God'. What's the difference? There is no difference.

[GalileoSmith]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

when there are so very many factions who disagree so vigorously with each other?

Hearing them argue over biblical minutiae like it really matters just sours the whole soup for me.

Is the fact there are so very many different flavours the real secret to its longevity as a belief system?

I think there are a couple of factors. I think one factor is that the indoctrination is done with fear as a prime incentive to believe. This fear is thrown at kids who are not yet worldly enough to analyze it. What's more, the indoctrination is done by adults who are respected or at least awed by the child. When the belief gets deep-seated, it becomes tough to break free of. Most people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they do not want to break free. What's more, they pass it on to their children. I think banishing the belief from an individual would require calm, rational discourse explaining the man-made origins of the belief, and also its many innate flaws. Most theists aren't willing to accept the information.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by GalileoSmith

I think there are a couple of factors. I think one factor is that the indoctrination is done with fear as a prime incentive to believe. This fear is thrown at kids who are not yet worldly enough to analyze it. What's more, the indoctrination is done by adults who are respected or at least awed by the child. When the belief gets deep-seated, it becomes tough to break free of. Most people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they do not want to break free. What's more, they pass it on to their children. I think banishing the belief from an individual would require calm, rational discourse explaining the man-made origins of the belief, and also its many innate flaws. Most theists aren't willing to accept the information.

Nice speculation. Explain why people like me become Christians in their 20s, 30s and 50s. I have several friends who were agnostic and atheist, who became Christian in mid-life.