Most US Christians define own theology

[LiberalNation]

and then they create a church for it......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090114/ts_csm/atheology;_ylt=AsD_8S8SAA54p.jGc7V8Jz934T0D

American individualism has made its imprint on Christianity.

A sizable majority of the country's faithful no longer hew closely to orthodox teachings, and look more to themselves than to churches or denominations to define their religious convictions, according to two recent surveys. More than half of all Christians also believe that some non-Christians can get into heaven.

"Growing numbers of people now serve as their own theologian-in-residence," said George Barna, president of Barna Group, on releasing findings of one of the polls on Jan. 12.

In the Barna survey, 71 percent of American adults say they are more likely to develop their own set of religious beliefs than to accept a defined set of teachings from a particular church. Even among born-again Christians, 61 percent pick and choose from the beliefs of different denominations. For people under the age of 25, the number rises to 82 percent.

Many "cafeteria Christians" go beyond the teachings of Christian denominations to embrace parts of other world religions.

Half of Americans also believe that Christianity is now just one of many faith options people can choose from (44 percent disagree with that perception). Residents of the Northeast and West were more likely than those in the South and Midwest to say Christianity has lost its status as the favored American religion.

Rest at Link.

[avatar4321]

Mankind is free to follow God in their own way. But it be nice if people started following God and not what they think of God.

[LiberalNation]

it's all what you think of god, even tho old men writing the book, just what they thought.

[avatar4321]

it's all what you think of god, even tho old men writing the book, just what they thought.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Im not sure what it is. or the old men or book.

[bullypulpit]

Mankind is free to follow God in their own way. But it be nice if people started following God and not what they think of God.

So that's different from what the likes of John Hagee, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, The Pope, The Archbishop of Canterbury and the heads of all the other splinters and schisms of Christianity think of God how?

[bullypulpit]

I have no clue what you are talking about. Im not sure what it is. or the old men or book.

Duh...You know, The Bible. As for the contents of the Bible, it was compiled by the Council of Nicea. The writings themselves were written by men. And regardless of the source claimed for the inspiration of those writers, their writings are the product of human perception and conception. Thus they are subject to the same flaws as the rest of us...the contents of their writings were filtered through the net of their experiences, their preconceptions, their judgments, their prejudices, their ignorance and, yes, their wisdom.

[darin]

If the writings were flawed, there's likely be contradictions in message or theme. In fact, the message is NOT flawed...but that's a distraction to the point of this thread.

The point is - the story LN posted confirms Scripture. In fact, Christians know how bad things will get for those who love Christ - at the very hands of those who don't KNOW christ, yet simply CLAIM His name.

[bullypulpit]

If the writings were flawed, there's likely be contradictions in message or theme. In fact, the message is NOT flawed...but that's a distraction to the point of this thread.

The point is - the story LN posted confirms Scripture. In fact, Christians know how bad things will get for those who love Christ - at the very hands of those who don't KNOW christ, yet simply CLAIM His name.

Ya mean like the religious right wing?

[crin63]

If the writings were flawed, there's likely be contradictions in message or theme. In fact, the message is NOT flawed...but that's a distraction to the point of this thread.

The point is - the story LN posted confirms Scripture. In fact, Christians know how bad things will get for those who love Christ - at the very hands of those who don't KNOW christ, yet simply CLAIM His name.

I concur!

One of the things I love about my church is that we simply try to find out what God's intent is in the scriptures and follow it to the best of our abilities however poorly that may be at times. What the writers meant at the time they wrote it. What the standards and practices were at the time. What the phrases meant at the time. What the words mean and meant at the time it was written. We strive not to inject our own desires into our understanding of The Bible.

People have to try and discredit The Bible otherwise they cant live the debauched lives they lead. Its just like the people who want to discredit the Apostle Paul. I understand why they don't want the Apostle Paul taken seriously. They have taken on a worldview that goes against The Bible. They are drunks and fornicators and homosexuals and supporters of those things. Since those things go against the writings of the Apostle Paul well then they will just discard that portion of The Bible and twist the rest so they can continue in their debauched lives. I find it quite sad actually.

[PostmodernProphet]

Duh...You know, The Bible. As for the contents of the Bible, it was compiled by the Council of Nicea. The writings themselves were written by men. And regardless of the source claimed for the inspiration of those writers, their writings are the product of human perception and conception. Thus they are subject to the same flaws as the rest of us...the contents of their writings were filtered through the net of their experiences, their preconceptions, their judgments, their prejudices, their ignorance and, yes, their wisdom.

and that is how you, in your "theology", define scriptures.....it is not the way that I or most Christians define it...it's what God wanted communicated to us; otherwise, it wouldn't have been there......that's why it's God's Word to us.....

[Abbey Marie]

Any Christian pastor worth his keep will enourage his members to read the Bible for themselves and decide what the scriptures mean. Of course, we all need guidance, too. But anyone who stands up there and tells you he has all the answers is a fraud. If that kind of self-knowledge and delving into scripture is interpreted as being individualistic, then so be it.

One thing is for sure- we should not put faith in what the media or the so-called experts say about us. The most off-base people I've ever heard are doctors of theology. They study "religion" until they bleed it dry of any true faith or meaning, and then dish it back to us with professorial gravitas.

[LiberalNation]

not a real devout catholic but priest normally encourage reading catholic approved bibles, papal papers, ect. for guidence not just go read the bible.

[avatar4321]

Duh...You know, The Bible. As for the contents of the Bible, it was compiled by the Council of Nicea. The writings themselves were written by men. And regardless of the source claimed for the inspiration of those writers, their writings are the product of human perception and conception. Thus they are subject to the same flaws as the rest of us...the contents of their writings were filtered through the net of their experiences, their preconceptions, their judgments, their prejudices, their ignorance and, yes, their wisdom.

You're presupposing. Im not saying you're wrong about LN's post. But her post was very ambiguous as to what she meant.

Honestly, It doesnt matter to me that the people who wrote the Bible could have been flawed. There testimony is still consistant. Their message still has power. And any disputation can be resolved with an appeal to the Lord God Almighty. I believe their testimony becase of my own witness that it's true. My own experiences give me the evidence to believe in Christ and the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.

[bullypulpit]

and that is how you, in your "theology", define scriptures.....it is not the way that I or most Christians define it...it's what God wanted communicated to us; otherwise, it wouldn't have been there......that's why it's God's Word to us.....

So, how does God "communicate" to us? How does an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, beyond human perception communicate with lil' ole us? By means of a burning bush? I've burned plenty of brush in my lifetime sans a talk with the Almighty. Or perhaps by means of revelation...a sudden dawning of knowledge of the holy presence within us. Rather subjective, by any measure, and thus not very satisfactory as subjective Catholics claim it is the Popexperience is open to any interpretation any one outside that individual's experience and even by the individual having the "revelation".

Who is the ultimate earthly arbiter of God's will? Depends on which schism or splinter of any of the Abrahamic religions one cleaves to.


You're presupposing. Im not saying you're wrong about LN's post. But her post was very ambiguous as to what she meant.

Honestly, It doesnt matter to me that the people who wrote the Bible could have been flawed. There testimony is still consistant. Their message still has power. And any disputation can be resolved with an appeal to the Lord God Almighty. I believe their testimony becase of my own witness that it's true. My own experiences give me the evidence to believe in Christ and the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.

You believe their testimony based upon your own subjective experience, which cannot be independently verified nor consistently repeated by anyone under identical conditions. Religion is subjectivism.


Any Christian pastor worth his keep will enourage his members to read the Bible for themselves and decide what the scriptures mean. Of course, we all need guidance, too. But anyone who stands up there and tells you he has all the answers is a fraud. If that kind of self-knowledge and delving into scripture is interpreted as being individualistic, then so be it.

One thing is for sure- we should not put faith in what the media or the so-called experts says about us. The most off-base people I've ever heard are doctors of theology. They study "religion" until they bleed it dry of any true faith or meaning, and then dish it back to us with professorial gravitas.

Theology is the debate of the unarguable by the otherwise unemployable. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

So, how does God "communicate" to us?

the Bible is there for anyone who wants to read it....and you won't burn your hands like you would on a burning bush.....

[bullypulpit]

the Bible is there for anyone who wants to read it....and you won't burn your hands like you would on a burning bush.....

Ever seen an ouroboros? It reminds me of your logic...circling back on itself, but rather than devouring itself, it simply collapses upon itself.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ever seen an ouroboros? It reminds me of your logic...circling back on itself, but rather than devouring itself, it simply collapses upon itself.

/shrugs.... nothing at all wrong with my logic.....I have stated that the Bible is composed of what God wishes us to learn about him, you asked how he communicated with us (a rather silly question since the answer was inherent in my previous statement) and I answered in a way which was logically consistent with my previous statement.....

the only thing illogical in the exchange was your question......

[bullypulpit]

/shrugs.... nothing at all wrong with my logic.....I have stated that the Bible is composed of what God wishes us to learn about him, you asked how he communicated with us (a rather silly question since the answer was inherent in my previous statement) and I answered in a way which was logically consistent with my previous statement.....

the only thing illogical in the exchange was your question......

Indeed, your logic is consistent...consistently circular. Your proposition that the Bible is the revealed word of God is stated explicitly in your premise...that the Bible is the revealed word of God. <i>Circulus in probando</i>

[darin]

PMP Easily won this exchange. :) Try harder BP - honestly you're seeming like somebody who will say anything just to keep the convo. going.

[bullypulpit]

PMP Easily won this exchange. :)

:laugh2: Not bloody likely...Y'all really need to bone up on your skills in rhetoric and argument. A through review of logic would be appropriate as well.

[darin]

dude - What PMP wrote is very clear. You refuse to understand it out of sheer stubborness.

[bullypulpit]

dude - What PMP wrote is very clear. You refuse to understand it out of sheer stubborness.

No, not at all. PMP is simply begging the question. He has no evidence to support his premise than the proposition contained therein. It's called "circular logic", a.k.a. as "begging the question".

[PostmodernProphet]

Your proposition that the Bible is the revealed word of God is stated explicitly in your premise

?????....apparently you have not studied logic......that the Bible is word of God is not my proposition......it is my underlying foundational commitment.....

[bullypulpit]

?????....apparently you have not studied logic......that the Bible is word of God is not my proposition......it is my underlying foundational commitment.....

Yet you have nothing to support that "commitment" beyond the Bible itself. Such self-referencing is, indeed, circular logic, which is where "...the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises...".

[PostmodernProphet]

fool....my faith in God isn't a "proposition to be proved"....it's a foundational assumption.....

[bullypulpit]

fool....my faith in God isn't a "proposition to be proved"....it's a foundational assumption.....

And that's different...How? Now you're splitting semantic hairs.

[Yurt]

Yet you have nothing to support that "commitment" beyond the Bible itself. Such self-referencing is, indeed, circular logic, which is where "...the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises...".

are you real? prove it.

[avatar4321]

Yet you have nothing to support that "commitment" beyond the Bible itself. Such self-referencing is, indeed, circular logic, which is where "...the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises...".

If any of you lack wisdom let him him ask of God who gives to all liberally and upbraideth not. And it shall be given unto him. But ask in faith, nothing waivering.

[bullypulpit]

are you real? prove it.

"I am, therefore, I think. - Ayn Rand"

A reversal of Descartes' essentialist argument. What's to prove? I exist as a corporeal entity which is independently perceivable by other individuals. Or are you lapsing into that hackneyed Kantian argument of the "noumenal" and "phenomenal" where the world we perceive around us is but an imperfect reflection of some perfect plane of existence beyond our perception?

The empirical trumps the metaphysical.

[PostmodernProphet]

And that's different...How? Now you're splitting semantic hairs.

it is different because I never proposed to prove something rationally....this entire thread is about what people BELIEVE and I stated something I BELIEVED....you claimed I was being irrational, yet I showed I was being rationally consistent with the faith statement I made....the only irrationality involved was your claim that I was irrational.....

[gabosaurus]

God and Christianity are in the hearts and minds of the worshiper.

[Monkeybone]

God and Christianity are in the hearts and minds of the worshiper.

true but no to the extent to where you can pick and choose which parts you don't want and not what you mean by it if i remember other times where you have talked about your chrisitianity (just a personal belief, if you like it keep on rockin at it). It is kind of an all or nothing sorta thing when it comes to not just Christianity but to most religions. And that is what i took from the article, parts that were liked or 'socialable' acceptable were chosen and used to define their brand of Christianity.

[crin63]

For Conservatives and Libertarians, The Bible should be looked at like we look at The Constitution. What was the intent of the writer, what did the language mean at the time it was written, what were the standard practices and customs of the time it was written. It has and had specific meanings that have not changed since it was written.

The problem lies in every man trying to do what is right in his own eyes instead of through the view of the scriptures as intended. Another problem for Westerners is that we view it through western eyes instead of an Eastern view. The Bible is an Eastern book not a Western book.