My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[Crossless2.0]

What are some divergent views that is not contradicted by a multitude of NT doctrines/discussions/teachings?

I don't think you really understand the degree to which I don't care about your intra-Christian doctrinal disputes. But what the hell. You want a divergent view? How about the decidedly non-Trinitarian views the observant Jewish guy at the heart of all this legend and myth almost certainly would have held? What later writers made of Jesus -- especially John's take on him -- can't be laid at Jesus' feet, unless, of course, you think Jesus wandered around uttering concepts about himself that can barely be rendered in sensible Aramaic.

[SteveII]

Mormons are not Christians. There have to be at least some basic requirements to adhere to the NT and they don't come close to the basics. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201...-away.html

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." -- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)

As I said before, Christianity is simply whatever it is that Christians believe.  Your absurd notion that there is some "correct" party line dividing Christians from pretenders to Christianity is just some partisan bullshit that you believe.  It doesn't have an ounce of logical weight.

That make no sense whatsoever. Christianity at its base makes a certain set of metaphysical, natural and supernatural truth claims. The nature of many basic Christian claims is exclusive. By definition if an ideology is exclusive, it claims that those ideological beliefs that are in conflict with it are false.  Therefore it appears there is at least a basic list of truth claims you must agree to or you are excluded. Where do we get ANY of the truth claims from? The NT. Therefore if your belief is in obvious conflict with the NT, then it follows that belief is not Christian. 

Another proof, say in 1000 years, there are no Christians. Would the ideology labeled Christianity cease to exist? No, it could be rediscovered if someone were to ready the NT. What if a scholar compared the NT with the The Book of Mormon? Would they be able to list the precepts of one against the other and make a comparison? What would the columns be labeled? If they conflicted, can you logically claim they are all Christian? 

For example, Mormons are polytheistic. That is direct conflict with any number of foundational precepts that Christianity claims. Mormons are not Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Minimalist]

That make no sense whatsoever.

Nonetheless, it is true.  There were all sorts of bizarre beliefs current among xtians in the early centuries according to xtian writers who were denouncing them.  One by one they were exterminated or absorbed by the ultimate winners, the proto-orthodox as Ehrman calls them, with the final nail being the Edict of Thessalonica in 380.

EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.
GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS[4]
— Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2

Thus did trinitarianism spread in the Roman world.  Not by "faith" but by political repression.  I'm sure you approve, Stevie.  You seem like the type.

[SteveII]

That make no sense whatsoever.

Nonetheless, it is true.  There were all sorts of bizarre beliefs current among xtians in the early centuries according to xtian writers who were denouncing them.  One by one they were exterminated or absorbed by the ultimate winners, the proto-orthodox as Ehrman calls them, with the final nail being the Edict of Thessalonica in 380.





Thus did trinitarianism spread in the Roman world.  Not by "faith" but by political repression.  I'm sure you approve, Stevie.  You seem like the type.

When did Arianism appear? What 315-320?  Here's your reasoning:

1. Nearly all Christians believed in the Trinity for 250+years
2. Someone new came along (Arius) with "Jesus is a demigod" nearly 300 years after Jesus
3. Within 10 or so years, Church leaders determine heresy with a vote of 300 bishops to 2. (Council of Nicea 325)
4. Leaders got tired of the heresy being propagated in certain corners and cracked down. 
5. Therefore "trinitarianism spread in the Roman world.  Not by "faith" but by political repression" and became set for all time. 

Brilliantly done.

[Angrboda]

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." -- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)

As I said before, Christianity is simply whatever it is that Christians believe.  Your absurd notion that there is some "correct" party line dividing Christians from pretenders to Christianity is just some partisan bullshit that you believe.  It doesn't have an ounce of logical weight.

That make no sense whatsoever. Christianity at its base makes a certain set of metaphysical, natural and supernatural truth claims. The nature of many basic Christian claims is exclusive. By definition if an ideology is exclusive, it claims that those ideological beliefs that are in conflict with it are false.  Therefore it appears there is at least a basic list of truth claims you must agree to or you are excluded. Where do we get ANY of the truth claims from? The NT. Therefore if your belief is in obvious conflict with the NT, then it follows that belief is not Christian. 

Another proof, say in 1000 years, there are no Christians. Would the ideology labeled Christianity cease to exist? No, it could be rediscovered if someone were to ready the NT. What if a scholar compared the NT with the The Book of Mormon? Would they be able to list the precepts of one against the other and make a comparison? What would the columns be labeled? If they conflicted, can you logically claim they are all Christian? 

For example, Mormons are polytheistic. That is direct conflict with any number of foundational precepts that Christianity claims. Mormons are not Christians.

You would have been more honest if you would have said "my Christianity" in the above instead of just "Christianity." You claim that Mormons are polytheistic. They don't see it that way. It's a matter of subjective opinion. Jews and Muslims see you as polytheist. You see it differently. Neither claim is based on an actual objective fact. Christianity is by its nature pluralistic in fact, but exclusive in belief. That doesn't change the fact that what one Christian or another excludes from Christianity is based on subjective opinion, and so enjoys no privilege over what any other person who claims to be Christian believes. Are you a Christian if you don't believe in the book of Mormon? It is a matter of opinion. Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the bible? Again, opinion. Does the Gospel of John belong in the bible? Again, opinion. All you've got is a bunch of subjective opinions about what does and does not make someone a Christian. Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power. Neither gets you to an objective fact of the matter. One might argue that belief in some kind of Christ is necessary, but since Mormons fit that bill, you're simply out to lunch here. I recognize that you've drunk the koolaid which outlines your specific beliefs and that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is not Christian, but ultimately that is nothing more than your subjective opinion on the matter. Your opinion doesn't mean dick when it comes to settling just what Christianity is, exclusive or not. It's just your opinion, nothing more. Anybody else who happens to believe in Jesus Christ of some form and calls themselves Christian has as much basis for saying what is and is not a Christian as you do, which is to say, not much. Christianity is a social movement based around beliefs about Jesus Christ. Anyone that fits that description is therefore a Christian, in spite of the perennial bickering over who does and who does not belong in the club. Such disputes aren't based on objective facts and so they are worth dick squat in resolving the question. The best you can come up with reduce to appeals to popularity or might makes right arguments, neither of which is a rational basis for determining who is and is not a Christian.

[brewer]

Mormons are not Christians. There have to be at least some basic requirements to adhere to the NT and they don't come close to the basics. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201...-away.html

That's not what they say: https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

They're just not True Christians, right?

[Minimalist]

1. Nearly all Christians believed in the Trinity for 250+years

No, fucktard.  The "trinity" did not even exist until Tertullian invented it in the 3d century.  Your ignorance of how your own church grew is simply astonishing.  Oh, and Arian was one of many.... he hardly invented the concepts of gnosticism and Docetism.

How do you manage to be so fucking stupid?  Oh, of course.  You uncritically believe in church "tradition."

Your problem, moron.

[Mister Agenda]

Correct! I have no fucking idea.

I'm shocked.  Including Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox, more than 99%. Kind of undercuts the whole "they don't even know what they believe" stupid comments.

Well, if you cut out the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarian Christians, and United Church of God, and a few others, including some South American ones; you're probably right. However, you don't have the authority to exclude them. It's just your opinion that they should not be included when counting up Christians. There are plenty of evangelicals who would exclude the Orthodox and Catholic churches and they don't get to make that call either; except among themselves.

---

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the trinity, There are only a few protestant groups that don't believe in the trinity. With 2.3 billion Christians, 1% would be 23,000,000. Those groups are not that big. The constant charge that there are so many opinions within Christianity on the subject is stupid.

I agree.

I think it's equally stupid to pretend that the doctrine is necessarily baked into Christian belief or was there from the beginning of the movement, and not something cobbled together as a "solution" to a long-standing problem for the church. The number of people who subsequently embraced the doctrine, after the church had effectively labeled alternative understandings as heresies and rooted them out, is neither impressive nor compelling.

By finding out what I could about the membership of nontrinitarian Christian denominations on Wikipedia and low-balling it (picking the bottom of the ranges) I get a minimum of 36 million members of nontrinitarian Christian denominations.

[SteveII]

That make no sense whatsoever. Christianity at its base makes a certain set of metaphysical, natural and supernatural truth claims. The nature of many basic Christian claims is exclusive. By definition if an ideology is exclusive, it claims that those ideological beliefs that are in conflict with it are false.  Therefore it appears there is at least a basic list of truth claims you must agree to or you are excluded. Where do we get ANY of the truth claims from? The NT. Therefore if your belief is in obvious conflict with the NT, then it follows that belief is not Christian. 

Another proof, say in 1000 years, there are no Christians. Would the ideology labeled Christianity cease to exist? No, it could be rediscovered if someone were to ready the NT. What if a scholar compared the NT with the The Book of Mormon? Would they be able to list the precepts of one against the other and make a comparison? What would the columns be labeled? If they conflicted, can you logically claim they are all Christian? 

For example, Mormons are polytheistic. That is direct conflict with any number of foundational precepts that Christianity claims. Mormons are not Christians.

You would have been more honest if you would have said "my Christianity" in the above instead of just "Christianity."  You claim that Mormons are polytheistic.  They don't see it that way.  It's a matter of subjective opinion.  Jews and Muslims see you as polytheist.  You see it differently.  Neither claim is based on an actual objective fact.  Christianity is by its nature pluralistic in fact, but exclusive in belief.  That doesn't change the fact that what one Christian or another excludes from Christianity is based on subjective opinion, and so enjoys no privilege over what any other person who claims to be Christian believes.  Are you a Christian if you don't believe in the book of Mormon?  It is a matter of opinion.  Does the Gospel of Peter belong in the bible?  Again, opinion.  Does the Gospel of John belong in the bible?  Again, opinion.  All you've got is a bunch of subjective opinions about what does and does not make someone a Christian.  Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power.  Neither gets you to an objective fact of the matter.  One might argue that belief in some kind of Christ is necessary, but since Mormons fit that bill, you're simply out to lunch here.  I recognize that you've drunk the koolaid which outlines your specific beliefs and that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is not Christian, but ultimately that is nothing more than your subjective opinion on the matter.  Your opinion doesn't mean dick when it comes to settling just what Christianity is, exclusive or not.  It's just your opinion, nothing more.  Anybody else who happens to believe in Jesus Christ of some form and calls themselves Christian has as much basis for saying what is and is not a Christian as you do, which is to say, not much.  Christianity is a social movement based around beliefs about Jesus Christ.  Anyone that fits that description is therefore a Christian, in spite of the perennial bickering over who does and who does not belong in the club.  Such disputes aren't based on objective facts and so they are worth dick squat in resolving the question.  The best you can come up with reduce to appeals to popularity or might makes right arguments, neither of which is a rational basis for determining who is and is not a Christian.  

Still disagree. Why is the Gospel of John in the Bible? Because it had provenance and was theologically consistent with other known letters and docs with their own provenance. That is not opinion. Obviously there was standards because some books did not make the cut. Those that did not make the cut are not considered by anyone today as providing "Christian" doctrine. So, the early church applied standards, went back to the earliest and most reliable texts and weeded out the diverging thinkers and outright fakes. It makes no sense that they could apply the internally-consistent-constraint-standard on doctrines then and we can't today. No appeal to popularity, no might-makes-right. 

Your "Historically, the determinant of what was Christianity came down to violent suppression of minority opinions and consensus of those in power" is a red herring. You can easily start the development of doctrine from the NT from scratch. That's how we got Protestants. 


I think you are confusing the question if I consider myself a Christian, am I a Christian? with the fact of the matter. If one's belief is they are a Christian but they hold views that contradict Christianity, their belief is in error. At best they are a cultural Christian or nominal Christian. These two adjectives change the meaning to something other than a believer and follower in the central doctrines of a religion/ideology centered around Christ as revealed in the NT.