Most Christians Just Don't Believe that Stuff
Yet another poll has come out asking Christians what they believe, and equally as important, what they don't believe. The majority don't believe there is a Holy Spirit. Also, they do not believe the Christian God is the only legitimate god. According to "experts" in the faith, such people are very wrong. The question, what can be done about it?
So many solutions have been run up the flag pole. Parents must teach their children correctly. Preachers must hammer home the message. Fellow Christians must become better informed about their faith. These result of all these imperative solutions has been more erosion of beliefs among those who profess they are Christians.
We all know the only requirement for being called a "Christian" is for a person to say yes when asked. Of course, there are criticisms of those who answer yes but know little about the faith's doctrine. If a majority of self identified Christians do not believe in the central tenets of the faith how many genuine Christians are there in the U.S. and for that matter in the world?
As an outsider I have a view as to why so many Christians do not know or do not care about the basic tenets of faith. The answer it is no longer possible for people to believe the tenets. It is not possible, for example, for most adults in this century to believe there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit. Time as moved on and the faith is stuck at the starting gate.
So, what can be done about the problem? The solution is to change the faith, or, change how it is presented and taught. Plenty of people will shout together the faith cannot change. What such people are saying is they themselves do not want the faith to differ from what they themselves believe it to be. The faith itself can be changed.
The faith is many dozens of denominal documents claiming to believe this and that. These documents were approved of by boards or votes of some kinds. More votes on new versions therefore can change the faith.
What should it change to? In recent decades an answer has developed. It is sometimes called "All Jesus, all the time." That is, the more favorable and pleasant characteristics attributed to the mythical figure of Jesus should be adopted at "the faith" and the rest of it relegated to the dust bin. Liberal branches of the faith now worship in this way because they came to realize this was the only option. All the stuff about the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, sin and whatever else just no longer fits today's culture. What fits is a character, even if fictitious, that embodies today's culture.
I have always wondered about this and am happy to know that others are wondering about some supposedly holy spirit
ReplyDeleteIn the year 325 A.D., the Nicene Council convened to settle doctrinal issues of the divinity of Christ and His relationship to God. It was called to address heresies. It settled the issues and the Nicene Creed was adopted. Think of it as an update to the Apostle's Creed. The Arian heresy was resolved, i.e. Christ was not born of the Father but was begotten with Him. The theology of the Holy Spirit was resolved.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, not every Christian is a seasoned theologian. It is not necessary to know all the tenets, dogmas and beliefs of the Faith. Salvation awaits those with a simple Faith as well as those with Theology Ph.Ds.
The key issue of Christianity is to love God with all one's heart and to love fell humans as one loves one self. If you can follow that up with obeying the Ten Commandments, you're doing great. Denying Christ, and believing and worshiping false gods are all problematic.
The solution is not to change the Faith.
You can bring up all the various sects and denominations of Christianity. This is one of your joys, along with making fun of the divisions.
Do you have any new material? This is like watching a magician do the same act night after night.
Matt-- "..325 A.D. the Nicene Council convened to settle doctrinal issues...It settled the issues..."
ReplyDeleteOnly to some. To others, apparently the majority today, the doctrinal issues remain unsettled, or, settled in some other conclusion than that reached by the Nicene Council.
You get it wrong for exactly the same reason each time. The doctrine is settled. Just because some or most people don't accept the doctrine does not make it unsettled.1+1 is 2 even if little Johnny gets it wrong on a test.
DeleteMatt-- "The doctrine is settled."
DeleteYour thinking goes like this (at least my interpretation of your thinking, a topic about which only you are an authority), "If I like what the Nicene Council decided this it is the authority which found the truth and all other views are false." Who made up the Nicene Council? Political operatives of the time. Plus those who did not happen to be sick at the time and who had the means and time to travel. Reading detailed accounts of more recent history, our Constitutional Convention, it was surprising how often participants missed days of it because of travel problems and sickness. Thus, those who attended the Nicene Council were there by fortuitous chance. That you have chosen it as the ultimate source of authority is also arbitrary. Just occurred to me it would be fun to write about this tonight in a blog so I'll stop here.
Political operatives.
DeleteDo you have any new material?
Matt--"Political operatives. Do you have any new material.?"
DeleteNo, I don't. Those who attended the Nicene gathering were the wealthy 1% of their time. They had either made lots of money with their sheep and goats or trading or inherited lots of money. Only this slice of society was literate. Thus, they were an elite passing down their preferences to the lessors of society. Throughout recorded history the elite of every era has made rules to help themselves. So, new material? Just the same old same old that you have been unable to refute.
Whether wealthy or poor, black or white, young or old, the Council was made up of Catholic bishops who met to do the Church's business. There were no affirmative action quotas, BLM, Antifa or LGBTQ involvement. The doctrine they discussed, clarified and decided is still today's doctrine. It was more about a revelation than relativism. Councils are meant to discern the will of God and to enlighten the entire Church.
ReplyDeleteThere were 250-318 bishops who attended. The pope is believed to have been absent. The council was convened by Emperor Constantine and held in Turkey. There is nothing stated that the bishops were wealthy or poor. However, from Christ until 311 A.D., there were varying degrees of persecution of Christians. To be a Christian was tantamount to accepting martyrdom. Constantine changed that around 311 A.D. but it is safe to say the bishops attending the Nicean Council in 325 were paupers, funded almost entirely by the Emperor. No doubt they were literate. Each had 3 assistants to help them at the council. The Emperor presided over the council despite not even being a baptized Christian. He did not vote on matters.
You should stop making stuff up, i.e. lying. It is patently obvious even to your most ardent apologists.
Matt-- I read again the Wikipedia version of the Council which, of course, may differ from other accounts. It sounds to me like most or all attending were literate. That means they were either wealthy or from wealthy families--the 1%. A lot of the time was spent dividing up the spoils, which Bishops got the big districts. Then there were long discussions of esoteric religious arguments, is God higher ranking than Jesus, blah, blah, blah...
DeleteYour reading of the Council is sooo Catholic. Certain people are authorities, authorities and assigned by God, ordinary people are not to question them.
The Baptists are a discordant bunch, but at their core is the anti Catholic belief no authority shall come between a man and his Bible. I grew up in a Swedish version of that belief.
So, there you have two vastly different versions of religious reality. Both have followers in the billions. Both are whacko.
Your assumption that literacy equates to wealth is not borne out by the facts. Bill Gates and Jon Lindgren are literate ...
DeleteBack then, as I clearly stated, the bishops were just beginning a time period in Christianity that Christians were not routinely martyred. Emperor Constantine funded a great deal of the Nicean Council, i.e. the nearly 1800 people who attended; their travel, food and lodging.
Why do you make assumptions when the facts are what are important? Wealthy families? You have no factual basis for that.
One of the attending bishops was Saint Nicholas of Greece. Yes, his parents were wealthy but Nicholas gave away their wealth upon their deaths. He could have assumed their wealth but like many Christians of that time, they chose a life like Christ, i.e. poverty.
Then there is Paul of Neocaesarea, aka Saint Paul. He not only was poor but he was starved, beaten and had his hands burned so that all his motor nerves were damaged beyond repair. Paul went from prison to the Council of Nicea after Constantine became Emperor. That really trashes your quaint lie about the financial health of the attendees.
What you may consider esoteric was simply the theology being discussed and decided. Philosophers and theologians take their work seriously as it has ramifications well past their mortal lives.
So, do you have any new material or are you going to regurgitate your lies and hatred?
they were literate, yes most or all probably were. it does not follow from this factoid that they were ipso facto from your much maligned one percent. literacy, as far as we know, was relatively widespread in the Roman Empire of the time. traders, military officers, bureaucrats, merchants, scholars. teachers, physicians, educated slaves, priests, etc. moreover, again as far as we know, many families -- some of them probably of modest means -- homeschooled their children. there were also quite a few private schools to which ordinary families could send their children. my guess, based on my reading, is that the literacy rate at the time was at least fifteen percent.
Deletetsm "my guess...is that the literacy rate....was at least fifteen percent."
DeleteMy reading says it was 5-10%. A few slaves and artisans but largely wealthy people.
this is for Matt 1554 hrs. did you mean St Paul the Apostle? he was long dead at the time of Nicea.
ReplyDeletePaul of Neocæsarea, also known as Saint Paul, Bishop of Neocæsarea, was an early Christian bishop best known for demonstrating the scars of his religious persecution under the emperor Licinius at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
DeleteSt. Paul the Apostle was long dead but St. Paul, Bishop of Neocæsarea, was present at the Nicean Council.
The literacy rate precisely at Noon on January 1, 325 AD was 7.98%. In other words, does the precise and accurate rate really matter? There weren't many things to read back then!
DeleteIt does appear that the literacy rate for men was 10 times that for women. So, if men had a literacy rate of 10%, then literacy rate for women was 1%. The peculiar thing about female literacy rate was that it was largely driven by the education of Catholic nuns in their abbeys. Similarly, the literacy rate among priests was much higher than the general population.
Matt, sorry about the St Paul business. I thought for a moment that you had slipped up. perhaps trying to reason with Jon was getting to you. don" know much about female literacy in the Roman Empire. but I suspect that it might well have been higher than one percent. one thing that I do know: women cut quite a swath through upper class Roman society. as they did in medieval society as well.
DeleteJon, since my comments are no longer being published, I take it I have been blacklisted. Done on this end too. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteI have published nearly all of you posts. I don't publish the ones where you repeat what you just said.
DeleteArdy, don't feel bad. seems as if he censors about half of my posts. thinks that I don't have anything new to say. or whatever.
DeleteArdy -- Sorry, I thought you post was tsm's. I think the only one of yours I did not publish was when you pointed out a spelling error. I corrected the error but did not think the post needed to go up.
DeleteBy not publishing posts immediately, unmoderated, Jon leaves himself open for warranted criticism. What has he censored? What has he modified from the original, submitted comment?
ReplyDeleteWhen people see their posts instantly published, it is called transparency. Slap a filter for dirty words like most sites do and you've got transparency.
I know I don't trust what I see and don't see on this blog.
interestingly, the post which Jon refers to did more than point out a spelling error. it asked him to provide specific information (names, source, etc.) to back up his claim that there were women Catholic bishops in the middle ages. apparently he had no interest in responding to my question. wonder if he will publish this post?
Deletetsm Ardy also pointed out the spelling error. It was his post I was referring to. As to "women Catholic Bishops", I can't find any place I referred to women as Catholic Bishops. I did refer to women Deacons. The book I'm reading discussed them.
Deleteas I recall you specifically wrote "bishops". go back and check it.
DeleteActually, The more things change, the more they remain the same.
ReplyDeleteLiterally all Jon's criticisms are the same presented in the time of the ancient church.
The Creeds in succession, were clarifications and developed responses to those very criticisms, doubt and hostility of the time. The chief antagonists were Arianism, Gnosticism, Hedonists, polytheists, Judaism, emperor-king-war lord-dictator worship (Ceaseropapism sp?) superstition, shamanism, and animism, along, with a few related tangents.
All the above are present in several movements and organizations to this very day, including the atheists. I need not name each one.
Interestingly, virtually all the above were present or known 600 yr. later on the Arabian Peninsula in the development of a new religion. Mohamed incorporated a little of each into the new religion called Islam.
helper -- "including atheists."
DeleteI agree there were ancient atheists complaining about those who worship gods. Maybe I'm getting picky, but lumping atheists who do not believe in any invisible gods with those who had gods different than Jews and Christians is a little off the mark.
I also agree probably I do not present any material that has not been presented for thousands of years. Atheism surely must predate Judaism.
Jon; Re. Lumping. I think including atheists was accurate. In that list I provided, there were some that that "do not believe in any invisible gods" as do you. You don't agree with Christianity do you? You are not alone.
Delete