If the Gospel was False... What Then???

[BCP1928]

That seems very telling as to the ambiguity of the Protestants in that anything that is not Catholic is protestant. That means this could contain many different belief positions.

Do you know how Protestantism arose during the Reformation, the role of people like Luther and Calvin and their theological views?

How can that be that someone with completely different belief positions that may align with the Catholic church and yet be Protestant. How can two churchs one that allows say SSM and women priests and another who doesn't belong to the same protestant church.

Those are not fundamental theological differences

If x catholics set up a church that incorporates witchcraft

Yes, it is rather strange logic. I don't really see your point. If the Catholics set up a church incorporating witchcraft the Pope would shut it down at once. Catholic doctrine does not allow churches involving witchcraft to be set up at all.

does that mean because I come under the protestants that I now must support witchcraft because protestants do, Seems a strange logic.

.What do you mean "come under?" You are a Christian man who presently attends worship services in a Protestant church, that's all. You don't "come under" anybody.
I don't see anybody in that scenario, Catholic or Protestant, who could possibly require you to support witchcraft.

 

[stevevw]

No, not "anything". See @BCP1928 's posts. Protestants follow the Nicean Creed and are part of the Western/Latin church tradition. The Orthodox are not Protestant or Catholic.

But the Catholics and the Orthodox also follow the Nicean Creed.

The Nicene Creed is part of the profession of faith required of those undertaking important functions within the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Churches.[7][8][9]

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because they share traditions and theologies of Western (Latin) Christianity, but don't accept the Pope as the big cheese. Some say the Church of England is much like the Catholic Church in style and structure, but as a resident of a state named after the head of that church you should know why it split and became Protestant.

What Queensland lol.Thasts named after Queen Victoria.

I understand the reformation and the resulting split or schism. There were a number of issues of how the church should organise itself. The pope being one of them. The level of authority he has a Gods representative on earth. But thats not doctrinal. They still have much in common on that front.

I think though there may have been some legitimate reasons for the split in doing so this has caused further splits within the Protestants. As though once they left the main church they were more volnurable to further compromise. Whereas the Orthodox and Catholic churches have remained true to the same teachings they all once shared.

No, those would likely be two different Protestant churches. (Again you assume that SSM is a defining characteristic of denominational categorization. It really isn't. There are denominations that are splitting over the issue but a Methodist denomination that splits into to over it just creates two Methodist denominations where there was one before. The big split in the American Baptist church was over slavery, the split still remains, but the issue is no longer pertinent. Churches split for lots of reasons. )

Man soon there be as man splits as there as opinions lol. At some ppoint they may as well trhrow their hands in the air and say 'lets just do away with the bible altogether'.

It seems the church that split soon ends up in a situation where they are splitting and then that church goes on to split and so forth. But in the meantime there are two contradictory belief positions. Some of those church try to rationalise that its ok to exist with two versions of truth as they believe in relitaivism and including various cultural positions.

But sooner or later those different truths clash and conflict and people are accusing each other of false teachings. Inevitably this leads to a split.

No.

First a church that was Catholicism + Witchcraft would really be protestant in the same way Vodou isn't protestant. It would have not connection to the reformation reformers like Luther or Zwingli.

Yeah it was a bad example lol. I was thinking witchcraft and Catholics don't mix. Completely different theology. My point was if a buch of people who more or less adhered to Catholic core beliefs but were not an official Catholic church. How not being an official Catholic church makes them protestant even though they may be Catholics in belief.

Second, there is no central organizing in Protestantism about "novel worship or belief" (or really at all) nor any requirement that what is adopted by one group be adopted by all. There is a lot of variation in Protestantism about sacrements, salvation, etc. Far too much for me to understand or care about.

I am really talking about the core teachings of the bible. The teachings and instructions to the church and how it was to be organised. This is what the Catholic church bases their core beliefs on. These are teachings, laws, instructions that cannot be rationalised away by personal or denominational views or ideological beliefs.

Christ teachings are clear and the diciples are teaching Christs teachings. Paul is predominant in this but so is Peter. So is the early church fathers writings as they come from the disiciples.

Those Protestant denominations that have moved away from the clear teachings have to be destiinguished from those who remain true. The problem as I mentioned is for some of the Protestant denomination and increasingly so is that now there are so many variations its hard to see the truth anymore.

Just look into that church you attend. Find out where its theological underpinnings come from. I think you'll find they are ultimately Protestant in nature. For example, is it "sola scriptura"? (See post #117)

Like I said many are x Catholics and as far as I know pretty well have similar beliefs to me. Which means they align pretty well with the Catholics.

I think anyone who looks at the church history can see the Catholics still have a lot of what was there in the early church. Their ancestory traces back to the church fathers after the diciples.

So it makes sense that anyone looking at geting back to the true roots of the church, how we are suppose to worship then the Catholics and Orthodox churches come closest.

But not everyone relates to the other frilly bits the Catholics add. But I definetly don't think none of our church think we are Protestant. Certainly not believing that there can be more than one truth to Gods word. Thats one thing I admire about the Catholics and Orthodox that they have stuck pretty well close to the original church teachings.

 

[stevevw]

Do you know how Protestantism arose during the Reformation, the role of people like Luther and Calvin and their theological views?

Yes, but how does that change the fact that a church cannot have two truths about scripture. All that other stuff was about politics. I am talking about the truth of the teachings to the church. How they were to be a church or not. Thats the most important thing isn't in.

Those are not fundamental theological differences

Yes they are. The marriage sacrement is a central part of the churches responsibility and representation. If a church teaches or allows certain opposing teachings then that is a fundemental split right away. In according to Paul this is the very thing causes splits.

This is the same as denying the hypostatic union in the early church such as Nestorianism. His followers were excommunicated and this became part of the Church of the East and also influenced Islam. So it shows how defying the truth of treachings can lead to further splits and compromises.

Having a denomination that may have split but still uphoolds the central teachings is one thing. But then lumping those who actually have defied the teachings is another. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Yes, it is rather strange logic. I don't really see your point. If the Catholics set up a church incorporating witchcraft the Pope would shut it down at once. Catholic doctrine does not allow churches involving witchcraft to be set up at all.

Yet some protestant denominations do.

.What do you mean "come under?" You are a Christian man who presently attends worship services in a Protestant church, that's all. You don't "come under" anybody.
I don't see anybody in that scenario, Catholic or Protestant, who could possibly require you to support witchcraft.

I think many people see it it as Catholic and Protestant. That the Protestants split from the Catholics. So they lump all the protestant denominations under that overall Protestant umbrella.

So I guess under those terms if we don't officially belong to the Catholic church we are protestant. Even though most of us are x Catholics and support the core tenents of the Catholic church.

The strange logic I am talking about is that when it comes to the truth of teachings as a protestant you have to accept and allow for other denominations that will promote contradictory teachings as truth. Even though these denominations may be independent they still come under the broad heading that allows more than one biblical truth.

At least with the Catholics and Orthodox you get what you see. Theres is consistency between the churches throughout the world. Its remained true to the original teachings.

 

[BCP1928]

But the Catholics and the Orthodox also follow the Nicean Creed.

Yes, that is one of the points I was trying to get through to you. Finally you get it. The Nicene Creed contains the core teachings of the Christian faith.

How not being an official Catholic church makes them protestant even though they may be Catholics in belief.

That is one of silliest things you have ever written. If you set up a fake Catholic church all you've got is a fake Catholic church. It doesn't make it a Protestant church.

I am really talking about the core teachings of the bible. The teachings and instructions to the church and how it was to be organised. This is what the Catholic church bases their core beliefs on.

Not entirely. It's the Protestant churches which base their teachings solely on the Bible. That's what the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about.

These are teachings, laws, instructions that cannot be rationalised away by personal or denominational views or ideological beliefs.

Yes, the Nicene Creed.

Christ teachings are clear and the diciples are teaching Christs teachings. Paul is predominant in this but so is Peter. So is the early church fathers writings as they come from the disiciples.

Those Protestant denominations that have moved away from the clear teachings have to be destiinguished from those who remain true. The problem as I mentioned is for some of the Protestant denomination and increasingly so is that now there are so many variations its hard to see the truth anymore.

Like I said many are x Catholics and as far as I know pretty well have similar beliefs to me. Which means they align pretty well with the Catholics.

I think anyone who looks at the church history can see the Catholics still have a lot of what was there in the early church. Their ancestory traces back to the church fathers after the diciples.

So it makes sense that anyone looking at geting back to the true roots of the church, how we are suppose to worship then the Catholics and Orthodox churches come closest.

But not everyone relates to the other frilly bits the Catholics add. But I definetly don't think none of our church think we are Protestant. Certainly not believing that there can be more than one truth to Gods word. Thats one thing I admire about the Catholics and Orthodox that they have stuck pretty well close to the original church teachings.

Obviously, being "Protestant" means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

 

[BCP1928]

Yet some protestant denominations do.

Really? Which ones?

So I guess under those terms if we don't officially belong to the Catholic church we are protestant. Even though most of us are x Catholics and support the core tenents of the Catholic church.

You are only Protestant if you belong to a Protestant church. Being an ex Catholoc does not automatically make one a Protestant.

The strange logic I am talking about is that when it comes to the truth of teachings as a protestant you have to accept and allow for other denominations that will promote contradictory teachings as truth. Even though these denominations may be independent they still come under the broad heading that allows more than one biblical truth.

At least with the Catholics and Orthodox you get what you see. Theres is consistency between the churches throughout the world. Its remained true to the original teachings.

You know, all of this talk about core teachings, differences of doctrine, biblical truth, etc. is a bit off topic for this thread. However, there is a lesson in it for you if you care to benefit by it. You make many pronouncements in this forum about what Christian doctrine is. You also pontificate about what other Christians believe, even though they disagree with you. No hard feelings I hope, I have no doubt that you are a good and faithful Christian, but you don't know any more about Christian doctrine than a pig knows about a clean shirt.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But the Catholics and the Orthodox also follow the Nicean Creed.

The Nicene Creed is part of the profession of faith required of those undertaking important functions within the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Churches.[7][8][9]

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because the Creed is not the dividing point between Cathlicism and Protestantism. It's time to reread about the Reformation

What Queensland lol.Thasts named after Queen Victoria.

Yes, that head of the Church of England. Surely you didn't avoid learning about the origin story of the glorious Church of England in the queen's dominion?

I understand the reformation and the resulting split or schism. There were a number of issues of how the church should organise itself. The pope being one of them. The level of authority he has a Gods representative on earth. But thats not doctrinal. They still have much in common on that front.

Different reformers had different ideas about what was wrong and needed to be changed. That immediately put their followers in to conflict with each other theologically. Many major divisions of Protestantism date back to the early years of the Reformation.

I think though there may have been some legitimate reasons for the split in doing so this has caused further splits within the Protestants. As though once they left the main church they were more volnurable to further compromise. Whereas the Orthodox and Catholic churches have remained true to the same teachings they all once shared.

[May my sanity be preserved.] No, it isn't about "further compromise". The Protestant movement had different ideas what constitutes authority. It is not as if the non-Protestant churches haven't changed (or "compromised" as you put it.)

Man soon there be as man splits as there as opinions lol. At some ppoint they may as well trhrow their hands in the air and say 'lets just do away with the bible altogether'.

No, that was Islam and it was earlier.

It seems the church that split soon ends up in a situation where they are splitting and then that church goes on to split and so forth. But in the meantime there are two contradictory belief positions. Some of those church try to rationalise that its ok to exist with two versions of truth as they believe in relitaivism and including various cultural positions.

But sooner or later those different truths clash and conflict and people are accusing each other of false teachings. Inevitably this leads to a split.

Yeah it was a bad example lol. I was thinking witchcraft and Catholics don't mix. Completely different theology. My point was if a buch of people who more or less adhered to Catholic core beliefs but were not an official Catholic church. How not being an official Catholic church makes them protestant even though they may be Catholics in belief.

Your church doesn't sound very Catholic in its beliefs.

I am really talking about the core teachings of the bible. The teachings and instructions to the church and how it was to be organised. This is what the Catholic church bases their core beliefs on. These are teachings, laws, instructions that cannot be rationalised away by personal or denominational views or ideological beliefs.

I don't think church organization is a core teaching of the bible. (It is a significant factor in dividing denominations, though. It's hard for two forms of organization to exist within one organization.) Most, if not all, of the NT references to church structure are from late-written texts that were not written by the claimed authors.

Christ teachings are clear and the diciples are teaching Christs teachings. Paul is predominant in this but so is Peter. So is the early church fathers writings as they come from the disiciples.

Those Protestant denominations that have moved away from the clear teachings have to be destiinguished from those who remain true. The problem as I mentioned is for some of the Protestant denomination and increasingly so is that now there are so many variations its hard to see the truth anymore.

Like I said many are x Catholics and as far as I know pretty well have similar beliefs to me. Which means they align pretty well with the Catholics.

Just look into the theology of your church. Please.

I think anyone who looks at the church history can see the Catholics still have a lot of what was there in the early church. Their ancestory traces back to the church fathers after the diciples.

THat is what they claim.

So it makes sense that anyone looking at geting back to the true roots of the church, how we are suppose to worship then the Catholics and Orthodox churches come closest.

But not everyone relates to the other frilly bits the Catholics add. But I definetly don't think none of our church think we are Protestant. Certainly not believing that there can be more than one truth to Gods word. Thats one thing I admire about the Catholics and Orthodox that they have stuck pretty well close to the original church teachings.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is one of the points I was trying to get through to you. Finally you get it. The Nicene Creed contains the core teachings of the Christian faith.

Yes but that makes allor most Christian denominations aligned because even most protestant denominations like the Anglicans, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions. That was actually my point. That regardless of Protestant or Catholic or any Christian denoimination there are core beliefs that cannot be denied because they are biblical. The Nicene Creed is basically a reading of the bible. If you reject it your rejecting the bible.

So just like the Nicene Creed is one biblical truth we cannot deny so are the other teachings about the church and how it is ordered. About sticking to the teachings from Christ and the disciples and rejecting the false teachings that some modern day protestant churches promote which clearly breach biblical truths like the Nicene Creed. Paul talks about false ideologies being taught and to avoid them.

That is one of silliest things you have ever written. If you set up a fake Catholic church all you've got is a fake Catholic church. It doesn't make it a Protestant church.

lol, well I am trying to get around the strange logic that anyone who is not Catholic is protestant. If a local home church of people who support the Catholics core doctrine and traditions but are not an official Catholic church or do they want to make themselves a fake Catholic church. Just to be able to worship similar to Catholics but without being Catholics.

Why should they be classed as protestants when they disagree with protestants or agree with the protestant movement. Why can't they be a new denomination thats neither Catholic or Protestant. A non denomination. It seems to be trying to force a church into one box or another.

Not entirely. It's the Protestant churches which base their teachings solely on the Bible. That's what the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about.

Well they sure messed up there. I thought you said that each Protestant denomination doesn't have to agree on interpretations of scripture and teachings. No sense basing teachings solely on the bible when they allow denominations to change the teachings of the bible. Thats just another way of saying 'don't use the bible truths soley' and allow for other versions.

Like I said take SSM or women priests, even abortion which are allowable in some protestant denominations. In fact both positions are allowed at the same time in denominations like the Anglicans. Some denominations still hold to marriage as between man and women as taught. While others allow SSM. More progressives support abortion as a womens right.

But women priesthood has been dividing the protestants for decades since feminism entered the church under the guise of egalitarianism. Because Protestants were already basically open to alternative views this made it inevitable to at the extreme radical ideologies are being accepted as a legitimate interpretation under the banner of egalitarianism and Christ like inclusion.

This is less likely to happen in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and they have basically stayed close to the teachings. By nature the protestant denominations have opened themselves to the infiltration of false teachings by trying to accommodate everyone. They now can't deny the logic of their own open and liberal position in telling others they promote false teachings when they have themselves allowed false teachings.

Yes, the Nicene Creed.

Obviously, being "Protestant" means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

It seems to be Protestan is another word today for liberal and progressive theology. This makes sense because protestant denominations have a much higher % of progresives and liberals. Especially among the leaders. As opposed the the more traditional and conservative Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It seems to be Protestan is another word today for liberal and progressive theology. This makes sense because protestant denominations have a much higher % of progresives and liberals. Especially among the leaders. As opposed the the more traditional and conservative Catholics and Orthodox.

No, it isn't. The meaning of protestant hasn't changed in centuries. It is still the same.

We're begging you to learn something about your particular church. Ask you pastor about it.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes but that makes allor most Christian denominations aligned because even most protestant denominations like the Anglicans, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions. That was actually my point. That regardless of Protestant or Catholic or any Christian denoimination there are core beliefs that cannot be denied because they are biblical. The Nicene Creed is basically a reading of the bible. If you reject it your rejecting the bible.

So just like the Nicene Creed is one biblical truth we cannot deny

And it is the only Christian truth we must affirm.

so are the other teachings about the church and how it is ordered. About sticking to the teachings from Christ and the disciples and rejecting the false teachings that some modern day protestant churches promote which clearly breach biblical truths like the Nicene Creed. Paul talks about false ideologies being taught and to avoid them.

There is nothing in the NIcene Creed about the Bible or how one is to interpret it.

lol, well I am trying to get around the strange logic that anyone who is not Catholic is protestant. If a local home church of people who support the Catholics core doctrine and traditions but are not an official Catholic church or do they want to make themselves a fake Catholic church. Just to be able to worship similar to Catholics but without being Catholics.

Why should they be classed as protestants when they disagree with protestants or agree with the protestant movement. Why can't they be a new denomination thats neither Catholic or Protestant. A non denomination. It seems to be trying to force a church into one box or another.

Well they sure messed up there. I thought you said that each Protestant denomination doesn't have to agree on interpretations of scripture and teachings. No sense basing teachings solely on the bible when they allow denominations to change the teachings of the bible. Thats just another way of saying 'don't use the bible truths soley' and allow for other versions.

Like I said take SSM or women priests, even abortion which are allowable in some protestant denominations. In fact both positions are allowed at the same time in denominations like the Anglicans. Some denominations still hold to marriage as between man and women as taught. While others allow SSM. More progressives support abortion as a womens right.

But women priesthood has been dividing the protestants for decades since feminism entered the church under the guise of egalitarianism. Because Protestants were already basically open to alternative views this made it inevitable to at the extreme radical ideologies are being accepted as a legitimate interpretation under the banner of egalitarianism and Christ like inclusion.

This is less likely to happen in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and they have basically stayed close to the teachings. By nature the protestant denominations have opened themselves to the infiltration of false teachings by trying to accommodate everyone. They now can't deny the logic of their own open and liberal position in telling others they promote false teachings when they have themselves allowed false teachings.

It seems to be Protestan is another word today for liberal and progressive theology. This makes sense because protestant denominations have a much higher % of progresives and liberals. Especially among the leaders. As opposed the the more traditional and conservative Catholics and Orthodox.

Maybe so in Australia, but in the US most Protestants are Trump supporters.

 

[Clare73]

A more salient difference in the context of these discussion is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is unique to Protestants.

Sola Scriptura certainly isn't more significant than the doctrine of the "real presence," unique to Catholicism.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is one of the points I was trying to get through to you. Finally you get it. The Nicene Creed contains the core teachings of the Christian faith.

Yes and that is what I was talking about earlier in how certain core beliefs cannot be compromised no matter which denomination. The Nicene Creed is a read out of the bible verses so rejecting this is rejecting the bible. Rejecting the gospel which is Christianity.

But I am not talking about that. I am talking about the other teachings which are also in the bible that are also central to all Christians and especially for organising the church. These false teachings from some Protestant denominations are poisoning the teachings and undermining the church. No sense believing in the Nicene Creed if your breaching Gods law and order and the teachings in other ways.

That is one of silliest things you have ever written. If you set up a fake Catholic church all you've got is a fake Catholic church. It doesn't make it a Protestant church.

The point was saying a small house church whose members are x Catholics or align with the Catholics is not Protestant. It still supports the Catholic position and is anti Protestant beliefs. Its not a fake Catholic setup because we are not trying to be part of the Catholic church.

Not entirely. It's the Protestant churches which base their teachings solely on the Bible. That's what the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about.

Ok but the Catholics also use the teachings as well as tradition. So truth in the teachings is vital. The problem is we have conflicting interpretations of the teachings between the Catholics and the Protestants on some issues.

I gave you the examples of women priests and SSM. The protestants read into the teachings these are ok in the church. The Catholics don't. Someone is wrong and defying Gods law and order. They both cannot be right. The Catholics have stayed true to the teachings as given by Christ and the diciples and the tradition that was lived out in reality. The Protestants don't.

Yes, the Nicene Creed.

No like other teachings like 'God created male and female and Christ taught they will be joined and become one flesh in marriage. This is as central to Christian belief as the Nicene Creed. Some Protestant denominations which is the majority allow SSM.

Some in particular such as the Anglicans refuse to ratify that marriage is only between a man and women. So there is open defiance of Gods law and order and the teachings.

THis is important because if the Protestant are claiming their position is based purely on scripture then they have two problems. One is some if not most have been shown to undermine scripture (SSM and other sin being justified). But also they often turn to tradition to justify their position on women priests.

They have no scriptures or very weak support so they use tradition heavily to help prop up their position by using traditional examples of women leaders in the church. Which actually conflicts with the clear scripture. So in fact that are using these weak and unclear examples to poison clear scriptures. That is the bad fruit Paul talks about that comes from denying the truth of scripture.

Obviously, being "Protestant" means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.

This is about the teachings so its relevant to all Christians. JUst like the Nicene Creed if these are disobeyed then this is rejecting central teachings that go into being a Christian in the first place.

You do realise that the biggest threat to Christs church is the false teachings. The teachings that appear Christian but rationalise sin mixed in as well. This is what Christ mentions to the diciples when He is sending them out to build the church that there will be many wolves in sheep clothing coming to undermine the truth of teachings.

 

[FireDragon76]

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty (1 Corinthians 15:14).

I don't see how Christianity is dependent on a particularly modernist historiography when it comes to accounts of the resurrection, which are admittedly not easily reconciled with fundamentalist readings of the Bible, when subject to critical scrutiny. I simply don't believe it's honest historical criticism to say we have the kind of obvious details that some fundamentalists believe are essential to Christian faith.

If the Gospel were false, Stoicism and Confucian-Daoist philosophy represent humanity’s best hope for an ordered, virtuous, and meaningful life. They echo Jesus’ ethical teachings through natural reason and lived experience, offering guidance rooted in the sovereignty of God and the idea that God has ordered a moral universe. Stoicism offers virtue (arete/virtus) as the highest good, mastering control over our emotions (cultivate the healthy ones and learn how to tame the negative ones), rational thinking as a remedy to overthinking (those logismoi that bother us all... Evagrius Ponticus is a great writer on this), and surrender to the Divine Logos that orders all things. Confucianism and Daoism offer us moral cultivation through virtuous living, an ordered universe (The Five Relationships for example), an example that man can live up to, namely, the Junzi (Gentleman/Noble Man) and the Zhenren (True Person), and acceptance of the will of Tian (Heaven) regardless of whatever the outcomes may be. If Christ was not raised from the dead, His ethical framework would not be unimportant. But... Christ is the Son of God risen in three days as foretold by the Prophets. Christ is the fulfillment of all things. But hypothetically if He wasn't, man still must strive to do the good; We would either give into nihilism or relativism.

A point to consider:

Early Christianity did develop in a climate where stoicism and neoplatonism were just taken to be true, more or less, and this synthesis can even be see in an early form in the New Testament itself. The resemblance isn't mere coincidence, and even Second Temple Judaism itself wasn't immune to contact with Greek philosophy. In fact it wasn't until the late Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation that this synthesis was serious challenged in favor of a somewhat more existentialist or phenomenological interpretation of the Christian religion.

Another thing to consider:

What is often called Taoism, in its actual practice in China, was heavily influenced by contact with Buddhism. Pre-contact Taoism emerged from an older tradition of shamanism that is pervasive in Asia, with the Yin-Yang school being just one school among many during the Summer and Autumn period in Chinese history (and is only one part of what constitutes traditional Taoism). It's not known if Laozi was even a real, historical person, and the writings attributed to him might just represent a contrarian tradition of Chinese folk wisdom that was being repressed by the dominant Legalism of the day. Actual Taoism, as practiced, has more in common with eastern Christianity (albeit far more diverse and less dogmatic); it's priestly rituals and mysticism.

 

[stevevw]

And it is the only Christian truth we must affirm.

No its not. I just gave you one of Christs teachings direct from His mouth about Gods law and order for marriage. This was established at creation and what Christ was referring to in His teaching. Defying this truth is like defying the Nicene Creed.

No sense having a statement that you stand on the Nicene Creed when your allowing sin to enter your church because you defied the truth of other central teachi8ngs. It actually makes them the wolves. The ones that mix truth with lies and it appears good to the less decerning Christian.

I mean its not really. Some Protestant denominations take the position that abortion is acceptable outside when its life or death. THis is based on a womens right to autonomy. Which happens to be the same ideology of secular society.

So the church is more or less aligning with secular ideology on this and not Gods clear law for murder and that God knows every person in the womb before they are born from conception. If a church cannot see this rationalising away truth then they are too far gone. But don't equate them as a legitimate belief in Christianity. You have to sort out the lies from the truth first before you can say they are Christian or wolves.

In fact I believe in some Protestant denominations because feminism has infuenced interpretations the macullinity of Christ and God is being minimised if not denied. Which is technically a breach of their own position on the Nicene Creed because its deminishing the Begotton Son aspect which was Gods representation in man and not women.

This is not all denominations. But because they have allowed varying interpretations this opens the door for such ideologies. But this will not happen in the Catholic or Orthodox church as they also uphold the relationships the Creed is talking about in practice. They don't allow alternative interpretations in the first place.

There is nothing in the NIcene Creed about the Bible or how one is to interpret it.

I am not saying that. I am saying the Nicene Creed is the bible, is the words of the bible. They are just reading out biblical truths. Every statement of faith the words can be found in the bible. In other words its reaffirming central biblical teachings.

For example "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth" Obviously that there is only one God is from the 1st Commandment. But there are many verses 1. Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. The same for the Maker of heaven and earth, Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That is the same as saying "we believe that He created them man and women and they become one flesh in marriage". This is also a biblical teachings. There are more teachings besides the NIcene Creed. In fact the Catholic churc throughout history has excommunicated those promoting heresay including the ordination of women priests as its against a central and clear teaching.

Standing on the NIcene Creed doesn't give you a get out of jail free card on the truth of other central teachings.

Maybe so in Australia, but in the US most Protestants are Trump supporters.

That doesn't make sense in that the number one policy for the Dems was abortion which more Protestants are likely to support due to womens rights which is a big part of their belief. It is unlikely that those on the Right are going to support abortion to the level the Dems do. The same with SSM and other LGBTIQ+ and DEI issues.

I think its at the extremes where the tru e position comes out. No one on the Right will allow SSM if they are CHristian. BUt they will on the Left and if there are any churches that are going to align with these extreme positions its within the Protestant denominations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think its at the extremes where the tru e position comes out. No one on the Right will allow SSM if they are CHristian. BUt they will on the Left and if there are any churches that are going to align with these extreme positions its within the Protestant denominations.

You are really focusing on the minutia that are not determinative in the broad categories of Christianity. Go read about them from a reputable source. I've given a few links from Wikipedia if that is a reasonable source to you.

 

[stevevw]

You are really focusing on the minutia that are not determinative in the broad categories of Christianity. Go read about them from a reputable source. I've given a few links from Wikipedia if that is a reasonable source to you.

Ok I don't mind Wiki as a starter.

But I think your missing the point. The OP is about Gods law and order and Christs teachings. So if we are going to use Christianity as the example from which to compare other moral sysytems we have to take into consideration all the moral laws of Christianity. Especially those which differ from secular ideas of morality.

JUst because a church says they stand on the Nicene Creed doesn't mean they are following the Christian morals. Afterall we are trying to determine Christian moral position compared to other beliefs about morality. If a church has the same belief as secular society which contradicts the clear teaching then this has to be pointed out that their position and belief is contradictory.

To a Christian contradicting the position say on marriage is like contradicting the Nicene Creed. Every church has a teaching on marriage. Its central to belief. To defy that is to defy the Christian morals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok I don't mind Wiki as a starter.

But I think your missing the point. The OP is about Gods law and order and Christs teachings.

It isn't.

So if we are going to use Christianity as the example from which to compare other moral sysytems we have to take into consideration all the moral laws of Christianity. Especially those which differ from secular ideas of morality.

It's about the structure of moral society if the gospels aren't true. (Notice the title?)

JUst because a church says they stand on the Nicene Creed doesn't mean they are following the Christian morals. Afterall we are trying to determine Christian moral position compared to other beliefs about morality. If a church has the same belief as secular society which contradicts the clear teaching then this has to be pointed out that their position and belief is contradictory.

To a Christian contradicting the position say on marriage is like contradicting the Nicene Creed. Every church has a teaching on marriage. Its central to belief. To defy that is to defy the Christian morals.

 

[stevevw]

It isn't.

The OP mentions Christ as the truth. His teachings. This is compared to Confucianism and other beliefs as having some similar morals but not like Christians in that we are made new in Christ and good works alone which is the basis for most other moral systems cannot make you moral.

So a comparison of other beliefs and what is Christian or not is relevant. We have to destinguish between what it is that CHristianity has that other moral beliefs don't have. Or the other way around. To determine if the moral system is like Christianity or as good or better. Or there is no difference. Thats the challenge, what has other beliefs got compared to Christianity. Otherwise we have no basis for comparison.

It's about the structure of moral society if the gospels aren't true. (Notice the title?)

Yes but you have to have something to base what the moral system is going to be. So if the gospels are not true then what is its replacement and how does that compare to the gospels. The OP mentions Confucianism about the virtuious person and how this is sort of similar to Christianity.

But it does not have the rebirth of the person in Christ. Its more like before Christ when it was the law itself and the efforts of the person to be virtuious and keep the law. Thus though it may reflect some similarities like other moral systems it is not the same as rebirth in Christ.

We went into some debate about what exactly is Christianity in that comparison. This was to highlight the difference between Christian morality, secular morality and the morality of those who claim to be Christians but are breaching Christian morality. So they need to be excluded as to what is Christian morality because they breach Christian morals.

You can't compare a false example of Christian belief with whatever belief non Christian moral system being used. First establish the clear Christian teachings then compare that to other moral structures. Then we can look at whether they are good or not for society compared to Christian morals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The OP mentions Christ as the truth. His teachings.

Not so much. the OP is mostly about the OPer clinging to notions they get from their understanding of Christianity and trying to find it in other "moral systems". I don't know why "ordered, virtuous, and meaningful life" should be the goal. It is not stated.

This is compared to Confucianism and other beliefs as having some similar morals but not like Christians in that we are made new in Christ and good works alone which is the basis for most other moral systems cannot make you moral.

No "works salvation". How very Protestant of you.

So a comparison of other beliefs and what is Christian or not is relevant. We have to destinguish between what it is that CHristianity has that other moral beliefs don't have. Or the other way around. To determine if the moral system is like Christianity or as good or better. Or there is no difference. Thats the challenge, what has other beliefs got compared to Christianity. Otherwise we have no basis for comparison.

Yes but you have to have something to base what the moral system is going to be. So if the gospels are not true then what is its replacement and how does that compare to the gospels. The OP mentions Confucianism about the virtuious person and how this is sort of similar to Christianity.

The OP is looking for a substitute for what is thought to arise from "the Gospels". I don't think that case is convincing (for what they think arises from the Gospels as earlier posters have stated.

But it does not have the rebirth of the person in Christ. Its more like before Christ when it was the law itself and the efforts of the person to be virtuious and keep the law. Thus though it may reflect some similarities like other moral systems it is not the same as rebirth in Christ.

"rebirth in Christ" has nothing to do with morality. It is about "salvation".

We went into some debate about what exactly is Christianity in that comparison. This was to highlight the difference between Christian morality, secular morality and the morality of those who claim to be Christians but are breaching Christian morality. So they need to be excluded as to what is Christian morality because they breach Christian morals.

You can't compare a false example of Christian belief with whatever belief non Christian moral system being used. First establish the clear Christian teachings then compare that to other moral structures. Then we can look at whether they are good or not for society compared to Christian morals.

This is all about what is "true Christianity" again to you, isn't it. I don't really care. I just get sick of your grand confusion about the basics.

 

[BCP1928]

No its not. I just gave you one of Christs teachings direct from His mouth about Gods law and order for marriage. This was established at creation and what Christ was referring to in His teaching. Defying this truth is like defying the Nicene Creed.

No sense having a statement that you stand on the Nicene Creed when your allowing sin to enter your church because you defied the truth of other central teachi8ngs. It actually makes them the wolves. The ones that mix truth with lies and it appears good to the less decerning Christian.

I mean its not really. Some Protestant denominations take the position that abortion is acceptable outside when its life or death. THis is based on a womens right to autonomy. Which happens to be the same ideology of secular society.

So the church is more or less aligning with secular ideology on this and not Gods clear law for murder and that God knows every person in the womb before they are born from conception. If a church cannot see this rationalising away truth then they are too far gone. But don't equate them as a legitimate belief in Christianity. You have to sort out the lies from the truth first before you can say they are Christian or wolves.

In fact I believe in some Protestant denominations because feminism has infuenced interpretations the macullinity of Christ and God is being minimised if not denied. Which is technically a breach of their own position on the Nicene Creed because its deminishing the Begotton Son aspect which was Gods representation in man and not women.

The "masculinity" being promoted by conservative Protestants and the whining about the "feminization of men" is a degenerate corruption of the Gospel and has nothing to do with either Christ or God.

This is not all denominations. But because they have allowed varying interpretations this opens the door for such ideologies. But this will not happen in the Catholic or Orthodox church as they also uphold the relationships the Creed is talking about in practice. They don't allow alternative interpretations in the first place.

I am not saying that. I am saying the Nicene Creed is the bible, is the words of the bible. They are just reading out biblical truths. Every statement of faith the words can be found in the bible. In other words its reaffirming central biblical teachings.

For example "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth" Obviously that there is only one God is from the 1st Commandment. But there are many verses 1. Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. The same for the Maker of heaven and earth, Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That is the same as saying "we believe that He created them man and women and they become one flesh in marriage". This is also a biblical teachings. There are more teachings besides the NIcene Creed. In fact the Catholic churc throughout history has excommunicated those promoting heresay including the ordination of women priests as its against a central and clear teaching.

Standing on the NIcene Creed doesn't give you a get out of jail free card on the truth of other central teachings.

You think about other people's sex lives way too much. You're beginning to sound like an INCEL

That doesn't make sense in that the number one policy for the Dems was abortion which more Protestants are likely to support due to womens rights which is a big part of their belief. It is unlikely that those on the Right are going to support abortion to the level the Dems do. The same with SSM and other LGBTIQ+ and DEI issues.

I think its at the extremes where the tru e position comes out. No one on the Right will allow SSM if they are CHristian. BUt they will on the Left and if there are any churches that are going to align with these extreme positions its within the Protestant denominations.

Most Protestants oppose abortion and LGBT. Don't forget, the mainline denminations--Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians--are the smallest part of Protestantism, at least in the US.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok I don't mind Wiki as a starter.

But I think your missing the point. The OP is about Gods law and order and Christs teachings. So if we are going to use Christianity as the example from which to compare other moral sysytems we have to take into consideration all the moral laws of Christianity. Especially those which differ from secular ideas of morality.

JUst because a church says they stand on the Nicene Creed doesn't mean they are following the Christian morals.

That's right. The Creed is about beliefs, not morals.

Afterall we are trying to determine Christian moral position compared to other beliefs about morality. If a church has the same belief as secular society which contradicts the clear teaching then this has to be pointed out that their position and belief is contradictory.

To a Christian contradicting the position say on marriage is like contradicting the Nicene Creed. Every church has a teaching on marriage. Its central to belief. To defy that is to defy the Christian morals.

Every Church has teachings on marriage--with quite a bit of variation. All non-Christian religions have teachings on marriage. Secular moralists have teachings on marriage. So what? Marriage has been a human institution since humans came to be.