|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2014 : 12:28:18 [Permalink]
|
Here is how the Barna Group identified evangelicals back in 2006:“Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
“Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical." Eight percent (+/-5.5%) of adults met the "evangelical" criteria back then. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2014 : 13:14:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Convinced
I would say at least five of the questions were not in any way controversial or up to much interpretation. No one knows what the real number is but it is closer to 15% than 80%.
|
I thought Romans 10:9 was pretty much the definitive word regarding salvation.
What else do I need?
|
I did not mean to imply that you needed to believe all seven things to be a christian. That is a good summary but there are another 31,102 verses to consider. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2014 : 13:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
I would say at least five of the questions were not in any way controversial or up to much interpretation. |
Of course you would. But since it's all made-up anyway, I could define "real" Christians as only those who see Jesus in their toast (presumably leaving you out of the club), and it'd be just as legitimate a standard to go by. |
I can agree for christians that do not believe the bible is inerrant. Christians that believe the bible is innerrant can affirmatively say that your definition of a christian is not found in the bible.
| If and only if your particular interpretation of the Bible is justifiably true with a rational basis (and "the Bible says so" is not sufficient) do you get to claim to be a "truer" Christian than any other self-proclaimed Christian. Because as far as I'm concerned, you're just one more self-proclaimed Christian. God isn't publicly defending your interpretation of "his" words, so there is no absolute standard by which an unbiased observer could judge your fealty. |
I agree. However with christians that believe the bible is all true then we can sit down and discuss what a christian is. I don't consider myself a truer christian only a christian. It's like saying a woman is more pregnant than another. You either are or not. Christians can disagree on many things
such as creation/evolution, homosexuality, innerrancy etc but there are a few basic things we need to agree with to be a christian according to the bible.
It is impossible to read the Bible without interpretation. The mere act of comprehension is interpretation, even in one's native tongue (and I doubt you read Hebrew or Koine Greek).
|
If you define comprehension as interpretation then I agree. But I don't agree with the fact that if this sentence was in any other book it would not be disputed:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
But there are many many "interpretations" of this verse to make it not say what it means. This is a clear passage in any other book would have a clear meaning why not for the bible? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2014 : 20:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I That is a good summary but there are another 31,102 verses to consider.
|
There are that many verses about being saved? Why would verses not on topic need to be considered? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2014 : 08:11:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
I would say at least five of the questions were not in any way controversial or up to much interpretation. |
Of course you would. But since it's all made-up anyway, I could define "real" Christians as only those who see Jesus in their toast (presumably leaving you out of the club), and it'd be just as legitimate a standard to go by. |
I can agree for christians that do not believe the bible is inerrant. Christians that believe the bible is innerrant can affirmatively say that your definition of a christian is not found in the bible. |
We know the Bible is not error-free, so those who believe it is inerrant are starting from a demonstrably false premise, anyway.| If and only if your particular interpretation of the Bible is justifiably true with a rational basis (and "the Bible says so" is not sufficient) do you get to claim to be a "truer" Christian than any other self-proclaimed Christian. Because as far as I'm concerned, you're just one more self-proclaimed Christian. God isn't publicly defending your interpretation of "his" words, so there is no absolute standard by which an unbiased observer could judge your fealty. |
I agree. However with christians that believe the bible is all true then we can sit down and discuss what a christian is. I don't consider myself a truer christian only a christian. It's like saying a woman is more pregnant than another. You either are or not. Christians can disagree on many things
such as creation/evolution, homosexuality, innerrancy etc but there are a few basic things we need to agree with to be a christian according to the bible. |
Again, that's true if and only if your interpretation of the Bible is correct.| It is impossible to read the Bible without interpretation. The mere act of comprehension is interpretation, even in one's native tongue (and I doubt you read Hebrew or Koine Greek). |
If you define comprehension as interpretation then I agree. |
How can you define it otherwise? When information enters your brain, it is filtered through whatever your current state of mind is (which includes all your years of experiences and other learned information). Nothing enters your head without being evaluated in the light of everything that has come before it.But I don't agree with the fact that if this sentence was in any other book it would not be disputed:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
But there are many many "interpretations" of this verse to make it not say what it means. This is a clear passage in any other book would have a clear meaning why not for the bible? |
I've never seen that passage in any other book that wasn't quoting the Bible, so I disagree with your premise.
Can you provide any quotation from any book with similar import to the work for which reasonable people don't disagree as to its meaning? Hell, in 12th grade English my class once spent an entire damn hour on the various meanings of "Call me Ishmael" (Moby Dick was our teacher's favorite book - we spent half the school year on it).
And how can that particular passage from the Bible not be interpreted? It is metaphorical. Or do you think we need to literally pass through Jesus' body in order to get to his dad? I certainly hope not.
As metaphor, it has lots of possible meanings.
It could mean that we need to fight Jesus and win, as in "you won't get out of here unless you get through me, first" (a common movie trope).
It could mean that we need to use a procedure Jesus has set up and runs, as in "if you want a new law, you need to get it through Congress."
It could mean that we need to practice some skill that Jesus knows, as in "live healthier through yoga." (Ooops, that'd be salvation by works.)
Seriously, the idea that there is a clear and unambiguous meaning for that passage is ridiculous in light of the fact that Paul seemed to think paragraphs were necessary to lay out and defend a particular interpretation against others.
And that phrase is just the beginning. The rest of the two sentences are similarly poetic, and thus necessarily interpretive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2014 : 17:17:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And how can that particular passage from the Bible not be interpreted? It is metaphorical. Or do you think we need to literally pass through Jesus' body in order to get to his dad? I certainly hope not.
|
If I literally ate Jesus flesh and drank his blood during communion, then why couldn't He devour (in order to defecate) me once I'm dead?
Damn, I just realised... Only Catholics believe in literal transubstatiation. And since Catholics aren't True Christians(tm), the devouring-interpretation is out the door.
Edited to add:
...Brrraaaaaiiins...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/28/2014 17:18:45 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2014 : 22:29:05 [Permalink]
|
| thread = offcially hijacked. |
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2014 : 03:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
thread = offcially hijacked.
|
Well, it's been 10 days and the_ignored is ignoring me. I'll be saving my money to sponsor Kil's trip to TAM instead. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2014 : 08:11:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Damn, I just realised... Only Catholics believe in literal transubstatiation. And since Catholics aren't True Christians(tm), the devouring-interpretation is out the door.
|
Not so fast. Protestants, they receive communion. They get baptized but not confirmation. I expect they're not alone with Catholics on that.
| Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), |
Let's face it, this is exactly what one wound expect from people making their shit up.
"Mary is a virgin." vs "No she's not."
"Jesus died for our sins." vs "Repent!"
"God loves you." vs " "Obey and praise him or he'll send you to Hell forever."
 |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2014 : 16:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Damn, I just realised... Only Catholics believe in literal transubstatiation. And since Catholics aren't True Christians(tm), the devouring-interpretation is out the door.
|
Not so fast. Protestants, they receive communion. They get baptized but not confirmation. I expect they're not alone with Catholics on that. |
True with receiving communion. But how many protestant churches subscribe to the literal transubstantiation doctrine? I doubt many do, preferring a symbolic feast of the flesh.
I've been served communion in both Lutheran Church of Sweden, and Pentecostal church. In the first case the bread was basically the same tasteless wafer you get at the Catholic church, and Madeira wine (very tasty), and in the latter I got sponge-cake with some non-alcoholic junk.
Anyway, in neither case did anything taste like raw flesh nor blood. If it had, I'd still be a believer, I guess.
| Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), |
Let's face it, this is exactly what one wound expect from people making their shit up.
|
Come to think of it, I'm unsure where the Church of Sweden stands on the subject. It's a reformed Lutheran congregation, but I never participated in the Lutheran instructions. I'll need to ask a friend about that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2014 : 16:32:52 [Permalink]
|
I'm reading in the Swedish version of the wiki article on transubstantiation, that while the bread and wine do transform into real flesh and blood, the taste and texture of it remains that of bread and wine.
So the real miracle isn't really that bread transforms into flesh, or that the taste and texture of the new flesh resembles that of bread and wine, but the true miracle is that believers really think a transformation has happened even though there is no evidence of it what-so-ever, other than the priest's word for it. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2014 : 06:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Damn, I just realised... Only Catholics believe in literal transubstatiation. And since Catholics aren't True Christians(tm), the devouring-interpretation is out the door.
|
Not so fast. Protestants, they receive communion. They get baptized but not confirmation. I expect they're not alone with Catholics on that. |
Prodestants don't get confirmed? Then what the hell is my son doing in confirmation classes for a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Church?
They do have confirmation. They aren't so pushy about the transubstantiation bit.
| Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements), |
Let's face it, this is exactly what one wound expect from people making their shit up.
"Mary is a virgin." vs "No she's not."
"Jesus died for our sins." vs "Repent!"
"God loves you." vs " "Obey and praise him or he'll send you to Hell forever."
|
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2014 : 00:21:44 [Permalink]
|
| Why are you acting like Protestants are one group with one set of rules? |
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2014 : 14:00:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Prodestants don't get confirmed? Then what the hell is my son doing in confirmation classes for a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Church?
They do have confirmation. They aren't so pushy about the transubstantiation bit.
|
Come on now! You can't be saying that Protestant denominations agree on and hold the same delusional dogma and ritual practices or what your church does is universal among protestants.
| (Protestantism link) Composed of hundreds of denominations with an expansive variety of doctrines, rituals, and religious practices, Protestantism formed from the split with Roman Catholicism during the Reformation in the 16th century. |
There are nearly countless different churches worldwide claiming to know the exclusive and only proper way to worship God and how to live for getting that coveted green card into heaven upon death. Technically Anglicans and Lutherans, to name only two, fall under the technical label of 'Protestants'. Far to many different beliefs from different churches directly contradict with each other and some of those are different mandated beliefs needed to be held and spread for salvation. Any person who is not able or willing to acknowledge this is in denial of the evidence and practicing a fanatical form of cognitive dissonance, IMO.
If you put the most extreme Judeo/Christian beliefs on display in a carnival, like was or still is done with selected people and charged money for the viewing what else could you call it but a freak show of delusional twisted concepts straight out of the twilight zone? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2014 : 06:26:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Prodestants don't get confirmed? Then what the hell is my son doing in confirmation classes for a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Church?
They do have confirmation. They aren't so pushy about the transubstantiation bit.
|
Come on now! You can't be saying that Protestant denominations agree on and hold the same delusional dogma and ritual practices or what your church does is universal among protestants. |
You original quote tended to indicate that no Prodestant subsects had confirmation.
Also, not my church. My son's (and my ex's) church.
| (Protestantism link) Composed of hundreds of denominations with an expansive variety of doctrines, rituals, and religious practices, Protestantism formed from the split with Roman Catholicism during the Reformation in the 16th century. |
There are nearly countless different churches worldwide claiming to know the exclusive and only proper way to worship God and how to live for getting that coveted green card into heaven upon death. Technically Anglicans and Lutherans, to name only two, fall under the technical label of 'Protestants'. Far to many different beliefs from different churches directly contradict with each other and some of those are different mandated beliefs needed to be held and spread for salvation. Any person who is not able or willing to acknowledge this is in denial of the evidence and practicing a fanatical form of cognitive dissonance, IMO.
If you put the most extreme Judeo/Christian beliefs on display in a carnival, like was or still is done with selected people and charged money for the viewing what else could you call it but a freak show of delusional twisted concepts straight out of the twilight zone?
|
I am aware of prodestanism and several subsects of that religion as I used to practice it. Now, I don't. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Friend needs help.
