Are you reading Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code?
btw, you are free to believe whatever you like, of course.
No so much. I believe it defines Christianity. That is all.
Good. Diversity is a good thing, healthy, a sign of life. And I think the evangelical movement was like a second reformation. Also good.
It’s been ages since I read that one. I also read “Angels & Demons” and “Inferno.” I like the second book most – the ambigrams were cool. But it is all total fiction, of course.
The creeds unite Christians in a shared belief.
You mean like the word “tools” unites so many devices at a shared location in the hardware store?
There are lot of Christians who never heard of the Nicene creed. It is not a universal practice to recite them in all churches, you know.
But if you tell them about it and read it to them, many will understand that they believe what it says. Some you might have to explain it to them first. Some you might have to work harder to convince them it means the same as the way they were taught. Some might get stuck on the parts which cannot be found in the Bible.
Abstract unity? Maybe.
A person born from the conjugation of two humans is not God. So how do you propose to make Jesus so?
(And throwing in the Trinity citation that you know I adhere to is not helpful)
The virgin birth makes Jesus unique and it is Scriptural, so why are you denying it?
According to Scripture the spirit of God caused the pregnancy.
Richard
I see no reason to accept such a premise.
I can do no such thing. But I do not understand why you think you can limit God to being incapable of this.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know what you adhere to. I only know what I believe.
Certainly not any more. Others wonder and doubt if it was ever that unique.
I am not denying it. Quite the contrary. Some people do dispute this understanding of the text. But as I have explained repeatedly… I could care less. I see very little significance to this either way. I see no contradiction with science. The miracle seems quite possible to me. But no I don’t see any great theological necessity for it either.
Yes and according to scripture God created the world. Neither lend a shred of proof to any of the speculations or scriptural interpretations people may have regarding how God accomplished either of these two things. I don’t believe in magic or violations of the laws of nature. So I think both of these happened according to natural law. And according to the Bible Jesus lineage is traced through Joseph. I see no reason to go along with your pick and choose dismissals of parts of the Bible to support your interpretations.
I know, and there are all kinds of churches out there, Unitarian, LDS, etc. But the vast majority of Christians use it or at least know of it.
As for the virgin birth, the Apostles’ Creed includes it. The Apostles’ Creed is used in mainline churches as the covenant for the sacrament of Baptism. The candidates for baptism (or sponsors in the case of an infant) profess it as part of the ceremony.
Again, you don’t have to accept any of this, of course.
1 Like
That supposed absurd theology is shared by the majority of Christians across the globe.
3 Likes
Perhaps AIG has risen above mere Christianity, the next step in the …evolution… of the brand?[/sarcasm]
1 Like
No, it’s bankruptcy.
No… I was talking about Christians not these non-Christian churches. Apparently your experience is limited to the older declining denominations who recite the creed. The majority of evangelical Christians churches I have been to don’t do that.
You could not be more wrong. I’ve been in Evangelical churches for most of my life, including childhood. One was really racist. One started okay, but ended terribly. And one remains a nice church to this day. I’ve only been out for about 15 years.
As for your disdain for older denominations and the creeds, I say, whatever floats your boat.
But I love being in a church with deep historical roots in the Christian faith. I love the sacred music and ancient liturgies, and the connection to the great composers, and other anonymous composers that runs from ancient times to the present, all so important in the history of western music. (I don’t care for amplified pop music.)
I love how the creeds connect me to other Christians in other communions all over the world, in the present and back through time. I love how our lectionary and church calendar are so similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s not for everyone, but it’s for me.
2 Likes
This one is. All too successfully. [Biblical] theology, including Jesus’ very own, has to try and stand against full, open, honest, evidence based enquiry.
Episode 19 of House Season 2 is an interesting exploration of religion versus science, with House actually keeping score between Himself and God in his treatment of a faith healer.
How do we place science first when…
I cannot recommend putting science first in the living of our lives. Science is based on objective observation and life requires subjective participation. But there is a lot of things where we should put science first. It is a matter of what things work best for what. Putting religion first and studying its scriptures in the making of decisions on how to build a bridge is a terrible idea – that is where the science and engineering devoted to the building of bridges is best.
I don’t have any disdain for older denominations and the creeds – quite the contrary. I have contempt for people with disrespect for doing things differently than their way – such as equating not reciting the creed as they do in their church, with not being Christian at all. It is an EXCELLENT explanation for the decline of churches where people have such an attitude.
The Apostles creed is not used or even mentioned in MANY evangelical churches whether they believe in a virgin birth or not. It is connected with the protestant reformation which recognizes no authority in these traditions made up by these older churches. So many new churches want to see it in Bible before they will recognize it as having any value. And no it was not used in my baptism. And BTW, whether you approve or not means absolutely NOTHING to me.
So just where did I equate not reciting the creed with not being Christian at all?
Where did I say you did any such thing?
Ohhhhh… maybe… you think it was implied?
You mean like someone might think something was implied when you went from my claim that many churches do not recite the creed to you talking about non-Christian churches?
That implied nothing.
How do we place science first when agnosticism claims that science does not prove God?
What a very oddly structured question. When does agnosticism claim that science does not prove God? Where? And if it did, how does that affect its ranking? Over what?
2 Likes
How could it say otherwise?
Very odd. Agnosticism is just the position that the case hasn’t been made for the existence of God/gods. Of course anyone accepting the agnostic position fails to find any proof in science, otherwise he’d be a believer instead.
Personally I think it trivializes what God belief is really about to treat it as just another empirical claim, as though it was like saying the Ivory Billed Woodpecker exists.
1 Like