Non-core beliefs

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#61
Call me old fashioned but I believe that legitimate...<snip>
By the above legalistic rule and a consistent application of it no one should ever comment on Scripture but just read it and never say a word.

Thank God that's not true or legitimate! It appears more like self-righteous bantering IMHO. Sorry, but that is the fact of the matter!

Biblical exposition is Biblical which is why we comment on Scripture, and why we are to test the things stated. Theological terms given by men help us understand the Word of God and are wonderful tools. Ephesians 4:11ff; Nehemiah 8:5; Luke 24:32; Psalm 119:8.

(I say all this for the sake of others, you will reject the truths herein.)
 

marinerscatch

Active member
Nov 23, 2018
114
31
28
#62
Ahh, number 1 on my list: question the faith of the person.

See previous posts for the list (page 2 I think).

You already know how to deal with a prideful person such as me don't you?
First, question my faith.
Then claim I've said something that I clearly have not.


Not at all. I am asking for myself. I have done nothing you should feel trapped or pressured about. I was just wondering from your blanket statement as to what you might mean by it.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#63
Clearly you don't believe Exodus 20:11... or Matthew 7:5.
Do you think the Lord wants us to say nothing when His church is being harmed? I agree, we must accept all others and not take the Lord's place by judging, but the Lord wants us to speak up when His church is harmed.

And why would it be disagreeing with scripture if I accepted the possibility that God started His work making our planet for humans from what God described as an chaotic, dark place that he created "in the beginning"? Do study the first chapter of Genesis and understand the Hebrew that translators used to base their translations on. Key Hebrew words (with vowels added) are owr, choshek, maor. and moarot.

If find a place where scripture tells us the age of the earth, many people would like to read that. I always heard the age was guessed at by adding generations and ages of men of scripture given and deciding that "in the beginning" was when God listed what He did to create the world as we know it.

Speaking of judging, how about deciding I do not believe scripture when you read my post?
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#64
Well given that I'm no longer a Christian, do you expect me to believe any of it?

Matthew 7:5 is a Christian's favourite quote to go to when somebody is making them feel vulnerable, be it by causing them to question silly non-core beliefs or by asking them to look at their behaviour.
The quote is fine, in its original context, but is used by Christians as a kind of tactic to detract from the point.

Anyway, do you believe the Earth is of the order of 6,000 years old?
Hmm................
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,763
113
#65
But such beliefs are, firstly, non-core and, secondly, beyond the scope of the information and story that the Bible is meant to convey.
It is not for men to decide what is a core or essential belief, and what is not. The totality of Scripture must be believed as God's truth (2 Tim 3:16,17).
If you calculate the age of the Earth NOW to be 6,000 years, then in 10 years time your calculation should yield 16,000 years.
You must be thinking of compound interest or some such thing. According to Bible chronology, the age of the earth is about 6,000 years.

So is belief in the Creation Account according to Genesis a core-belief? Absolutely. Read and study Romans 5.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#66
Don't worry.

These people (including those in real life) have done me a favour, as upsetting as it was at first.
........and yet, in spite of bidding us farewell, you still b here..........

I also notice you STILL have not responded to your denouncement of the Gifts of the Spirit, and Churches that believe in Faith Healing. I gave you the Scriptures............do you believe they are Truth?
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,195
6,508
113
#67
And the new Inquisition continues………..
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,195
6,508
113
#68
And the new Inquisition continues………..
This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

Firstly, many Church websites have their 'core beliefs' listed on them.
Core beliefs such as Jesus being lord and saviour.

Non-core beliefs are then beliefs that are not core.
This isn't a new word, it's simply using the English language in the correct way.

Secondly, and this isn't aimed at you personally, but I must say that I'm getting a little fed up with the culture in some Churches as well as on here.

By Church culture I mean anover emphasis on monetary giving (debate occured in another thread, and from that many people agree with me).

But I'm starting to see a pattern on here too...

...ask a pertinent of challenging question about something you're grappling with, and if it challenges others there are two things that will happen (that I've seen so far):

1. You'll be asked to confirm that you're actually a Christian.
Your very faith is called into question because you've asked something.

2. If you present an something that is clearly wrong Biblically, other users will quite rightly help you to see why you're wrong.
An example is that I was wrong about sex before marriage.

However, present your thoughts about something pertinent in a way that is logical, both Biblically and scientifically, but which challenges people, and you'll be called 'prideful' and accused of 'trying to impress people'.

I'm genuinely fed up with this.

I'm am a Christian and I'm asking sincere questions.
I just won't have somebody try to tell me that's it's a bad thing to exercise rational thought, indeed Jesus tells us to do just that.

I'm not having a good at you or anybody else really, but I am starting to consider if becoming involved in the wider Christian community is a good thing for me, or if for me it would be better to build my relationship with God on a 1-1 basis.
You confirm my post.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,195
6,508
113
#69
Whatever mate.
You're trying to mock me because of the precise nature of the language I use.

Apologies if logical thought is beyond your grasp.

Anyway, I give up with this.
I'll allow you to take this as some kind of 'victory' over me if you wish.

I'll tell you what though, I understand now why in the UK many people who identify as Christians don't associate with the likes of you.

Well done.

F*** this s***, I swear to God now that I will never step inside a Church again.
Your posting is not exact by any means. When I courteously responded and gave examples of how varied denominations have added terms that are not in the Word, your reponse to support yourself is that tmany denomnations put those "core beliefs" in their manifesssttos. Do you not understandyou are supporting what I have said… Many denominations use the ter made by man, core beliefs. Now if that wre not made into a term or label and simply came up as words in discussion, than my explanation would be useless, but you have confirmed it to be a term that all should use......balderdash.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
7,417
3,468
113
#70
I'm afraid I disagree.

Faith is trust.
Trusting that Jesus is lord and saviour is part of the relationship.

Faith is not an invitation to believe absolutely anything, or an invitation to lay down your God given gift of considered thinking.
No Faith is Trust and it is trusting in God because our human thinking is often inadequate for us to come to the right understanding of God and His will..

Believing in something that is not Biblical, not to mention blatantly false, is not faith.
It's stupidity in all honesty.
What else can it be described as.
What do you base your assessment on what is stupid and what is reasonable?? Your own thinking.. Your own imperfect human intellectual abilities? We must be cautious about declaring something stupid..

I'm not berating the people that believe these things, but their trust that absolutely anything presented to them must be true.
This is a direct contravention of Jesus's instruction to be sceptical and exercise due diligence.
On the general principle of this statement i am in 100% agreement with.. We should test all teachings.. But we overstep the line when we start berating others that they are stupid over issues that are not core issues of salvation..
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#72
Do you think the Lord wants us to say nothing when His church is being harmed? I agree, we must accept all others and not take the Lord's place by judging, but the Lord wants us to speak up when His church is harmed.

And why would it be disagreeing with scripture if I accepted the possibility that God started His work making our planet for humans from what God described as an chaotic, dark place that he created "in the beginning"? Do study the first chapter of Genesis and understand the Hebrew that translators used to base their translations on. Key Hebrew words (with vowels added) are owr, choshek, maor. and moarot.

If find a place where scripture tells us the age of the earth, many people would like to read that. I always heard the age was guessed at by adding generations and ages of men of scripture given and deciding that "in the beginning" was when God listed what He did to create the world as we know it.

Speaking of judging, how about deciding I do not believe scripture when you read my post?
Here are your words from your previous post (with emphasis added):

"Scripture tells us "in the beginning" was when God started creation. Scripture doesn't tell us when that beginning was.

It doesn't make a bit of difference when our earth was created, but it makes a whale of a difference if a person believes science then believes the bible makes a statement about how old the earth is, so based on science is right they toss out scripture.

Scripture makes some definite statements, yet these same people who stand fast on the age of the earth, something scripture makes no statement about, will stand just a pat about how they don't believe what scripture says, especially if it is in the OT. "

You claim that "Scripture doesn't tell us when that beginning was." Exodus 20:11, together with Genesis 1, does tell us.

Then after denying what Scripture plainly teaches, you rattle on about how people "don't believe what Scripture says, especially if it is the OT." Well, given that you don't believe what Scripture teaches in Exodus 20:11, what ground do you have to stand on when you complain that others don't believe? It is quite appropriate to challenge you regarding the log in your own eye when you complain about the alleged speck in the eyes of others.

As for your particular pet issue (Sabbath-keeping), I will quote you again: "Do you think the Lord wants us to say nothing when His church is being harmed?" Think through this for a moment... setting aside for the moment your position. I believe that you trying to enforce your belief is harmful to the Church. I understand that you disagree, but on the basis of your statement, I have just as much right to defend my belief as you do yours. Or do you only believe that people should speak up when they agree with you?

So, don't bother complaining that I am judging you. I am merely holding your own words against you. :)
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#73
Matthew 7:5 is a Christian's favourite quote to go to when somebody is making them feel vulnerable, be it by causing them to question silly non-core beliefs or by asking them to look at their behaviour.
The quote is fine, in its original context, but is used by Christians as a kind of tactic to detract from the point.

Anyway, do you believe the Earth is of the order of 6,000 years old?

Is Matthew 7:5 really just a tool Christians use to attack others?


Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."



1. Matthew 7:5 is nothing but an exhortation to the logically necessary method for proper observation in physics.

It's just rudimentary physics.

2. You cannot observe a thing clearly if something is obstructing your field of view, or affecting your field of view, or injecting incorrect data or noise into your field of view.

This is so basic to physics, and so well understood by all, that Jesus used this physical principle as an analogy for more metaphysical principles, like understanding behaviors and intentions.

This principle of PHYSICS is a perfect analogy for METAPHYSICS.

3. This simple method for proper observation appears in ALL of the sciences, and in ALL of normal life, as well as in modern psychology, philosophy, the arts, and certainly every single field of human endeavor.

There is no area of life where we fail to see this principle at work.
It is both ubiquitous and universal.


4. Jesus used this method for observation in physics as an analogy for metaphysics because...
IT IS SO WELL UNDERSTOOD BY ALL, THAT IT IS SELF AUTHENTICATING.

It is so well understood, and easily provable, that it is beyond question.

5. When used as a principle to understand ourselves, it's a beautiful principle; but when used outside of ourselves, to attack others, it just becomes a simple ad hominem (your arguments must be wrong because I think you're bad).

2 Ways we apply this principle to others:

A. CORRECTLY: when applied to others, it can be a quick rule of thumb to assess them - this can give us quick and immediate insight in order to minister to them.
It's a fast, and reliable, rule of thumb to aid us in ministry.
(Will an atheist usually say and believe certain things only BECAUSE he is an atheist? Yes. This can gives us really quick insight for ministry.)

* How to use this: by looking at a person's arguments, we can reverse engineer our way to their core beliefs, and then use this information to minister to them.

B. INCORRECTLY: in a debate, it does NOT give us logical grounds for arguing particular points.
(In a debate setting, we cannot argue that an atheist's points are wrong just BECAUSE he's an atheist. This would be an ad hominem attack. In a debate setting, we must debate the arguments, not the person.)

* Christians get into trouble when they mistake "principles for ministry" with "logical rules for debate"... they are not the same, and they don't NEED to be the same.

6. Personally, I've seen this principle (in various forms) used by VIRTUALLY EVERYONE... usually in bad ways.
- Couples use it in arguments. ("You only dislike my idea because YOU are a JERK.")
- Politicians use it. ("The other side only disagrees with us because THEY are BAD.")

Everyone uses this principle:
A. Everyone has used this principle, in correct ways, to make simple, and quite reasonable assessments, of just about everything.
B. Everyone has used this principle, in incorrect ways, to sometimes make ad hominem attacks on others.


Conclusion:

1. Matthew 7:5 isn't a little quote used by Christians on bad days;
it is a common principle used by EVERYONE, all humanity, on a daily basis.


2. Although this principle is common, and well understood, we STILL sometimes FORGET this principle, or forget how to USE IT PROPERLY...
so Jesus exhorts us to REMEMBER this principle, and to APPLY IT to our human interactions and ethics.



...
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#74
Is Matthew 7:5 really just a tool Christians use to attack others?


Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."



1. Matthew 7:5 is nothing but an exhortation to the logically necessary method for proper observation in physics.

It's just rudimentary physics.

2. You cannot observe a thing clearly if something is obstructing your field of view, or affecting your field of view, or injecting incorrect data or noise into your field of view.

This is so basic to physics, and so well understood by all, that Jesus used this physical principle as an analogy for more metaphysical principles, like understanding behaviors and intentions.

This principle of PHYSICS is a perfect analogy for METAPHYSICS.

3. This simple method for proper observation appears in ALL of the sciences, and in ALL of normal life, as well as in modern psychology, philosophy, the arts, and certainly every single field of human endeavor.

There is no area of life where we fail to see this principle at work.
It is both ubiquitous and universal.


4. Jesus used this method for observation in physics as an analogy for metaphysics because...
IT IS SO WELL UNDERSTOOD BY ALL, THAT IT IS SELF AUTHENTICATING.

It is so well understood, and easily provable, that it is beyond question.

5. When used as a principle to understand ourselves, it's a beautiful principle; but when used outside of ourselves, to attack others, it just becomes a simple ad hominem (your arguments must be wrong because I think you're bad).

2 Ways we apply this principle to others:

A. CORRECTLY: when applied to others, it can be a quick rule of thumb to assess them - this can give us quick and immediate insight in order to minister to them.
It's a fast, and reliable, rule of thumb to aid us in ministry.
(Will an atheist usually say and believe certain things only BECAUSE he is an atheist? Yes. This can gives us really quick insight for ministry.)

* How to use this: by looking at a person's arguments, we can reverse engineer our way to their core beliefs, and then use this information to minister to them.

B. INCORRECTLY: in a debate, it does NOT give us logical grounds for arguing particular points.
(In a debate setting, we cannot argue that an atheist's points are wrong just BECAUSE he's an atheist. This would be an ad hominem attack. In a debate setting, we must debate the arguments, not the person.)

* Christians get into trouble when they mistake "principles for ministry" with "logical rules for debate"... they are not the same, and they don't NEED to be the same.

6. Personally, I've seen this principle (in various forms) used by VIRTUALLY EVERYONE... usually in bad ways.
- Couples use it in arguments. ("You only dislike my idea because YOU are a JERK.")
- Politicians use it. ("The other side only disagrees with us because THEY are BAD.")

Everyone uses this principle:
A. Everyone has used this principle, in correct ways, to make simple, and quite reasonable assessments, of just about everything.
B. Everyone has used this principle, in incorrect ways, to sometimes make ad hominem attacks on others.

Conclusion:

1. Matthew 7:5 isn't a little quote used by Christians on bad days;
it is a common principle used by EVERYONE, all humanity, on a daily basis.


2. Although this principle is common, and well understood, we STILL sometimes FORGET this principle, or forget how to USE IT PROPERLY...
so Jesus exhorts us to REMEMBER this principle, and to APPLY IT to our human interactions and ethics.


...
Great post! May I offer a small correction?

This bit... "In a debate setting, we cannot argue that an atheist's points are wrong just BECAUSE he's an atheist. This would be an ad hominem attack. In a debate setting, we must debate the arguments, not the person."

I believe that is a genetic fallacy (rejection of an argument because of its source rather than its merit), not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem in this case would be more like, "Your arguments are bad and you are a fool for being an atheist". Both types are used commonly. :)
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#75
Great post! May I offer a small correction?

This bit... "In a debate setting, we cannot argue that an atheist's points are wrong just BECAUSE he's an atheist. This would be an ad hominem attack. In a debate setting, we must debate the arguments, not the person."

I believe that is a genetic fallacy (rejection of an argument because of its source rather than its merit), not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem in this case would be more like, "Your arguments are bad and you are a fool for being an atheist". Both types are used commonly. :)
Very good.

I think generally, in actually conversation, especially if it's emotional, we'd see both of these fallacies bound up together and occurring coincidentally.

When I debate someone, fallacies usually arrive in a pack, like yelping hounds.
:)

...
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
#76
....oh silly me! Thinking and believing this earth is much older then 6,000 years! Jeremiah, and Peter, and the book of Job, must have just inserted these fairly tales, from the imaginings of their own vainful hearts, I suppose! HAS to be! RIGHT?

I'll agree that this current "earth and Heaven" AGE, is around 6,000 years old. Give er take a few centuries! :p
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#77
Great post! May I offer a small correction?

This bit... "In a debate setting, we cannot argue that an atheist's points are wrong just BECAUSE he's an atheist. This would be an ad hominem attack. In a debate setting, we must debate the arguments, not the person."

I believe that is a genetic fallacy (rejection of an argument because of its source rather than its merit), not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem in this case would be more like, "Your arguments are bad and you are a fool for being an atheist". Both types are used commonly. :)

Dino,
Since your answer was so astute, I was trying to figure out where the two fallacies overlap in this instance.


I think it's a matter of usage.
We can use the word atheist in different ways.

Wait, doesn't "atheist" always mean "atheist" ... isn't the definition clear?
Yes.
It's a pretty clear term.
But we can still USE IT, or THINK OF IT, in different ways.


Two ways to view the word Atheist:
A. You were thinking of the word "atheist" as a PHILOSOPHICAL CATEGORY... which is correct.
B. I was thinking of the word atheist as COMMONLY USED BY CHRISTIANS, a statement of PERSONAL MORALITY & SPIRITUAL CONDITION.... which is also correct.

So, the word atheist can be thought of as a philosophical category, or as a statement of an individual's personal morality and spiritual condition - both are common USES or VIEWS of the word.

And of course, in debate, one view would lead to an ad hominem fallacy, and one would lead to a genetic fallacy.
We might even say they occur coincidentally.

Anyway, very good point you brought up.
I hadn't thought about it till you mentioned it.

I hate having to think hard on a Saturday.
:)

--
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#78
Scripture makes some definite statements, yet these same people who stand fast on the age of the earth, something scripture makes no statement about, will stand just a pat about how they don't believe what scripture says, especially if it is in the OT. "

You claim that "Scripture doesn't tell us when that beginning was." Exodus 20:11, together with Genesis 1, does tell us.

As for your particular pet issue (Sabbath-keeping), I will quote you again: "Do you think the Lord wants us to say nothing when His church is being harmed?" Think through this for a moment... setting aside for the moment your position. I believe that you trying to enforce your belief is harmful to the Church. I understand that you disagree, but on the basis of your statement, I have just as much right to defend my belief as you do yours. Or do you only believe that people should speak up when they agree with you?

So, don't bother complaining that I am judging you. I am merely holding your own words against you. :)
You sure are speaking up, I feel battered, not disagreed with. Thank heavens we aren't in the same room.

At least you batter me most over the Sabbath. Christ was battered over obedience, and keeping the Sabbath was one way Christ obeyed.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#79
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
So is this parable of the hypocrite a principle or the doctrine of Christ?

This is so basic to physics, and so well understood by all, that Jesus used this physical principle as an analogy for more metaphysical principles, like understanding behaviors and intentions.
Then what is the twig in the hypocrite's own eye that he needs to remove before he can take the beam out of his brother's eye?
 

Embankment

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2017
693
190
43
#80
So is this parable of the hypocrite a principle or the doctrine of Christ?



Then what is the twig in the hypocrite's own eye that he needs to remove before he can take the beam out of his brother's eye?
It’s actually a huge object in the hypocrite’s eye and a spec in the neigbor’s eye.