Is Christianity something other than a religion?

Your lack of knowledge of the bible says volumes!

https://dailyverses.net/the-word

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-bible-written-word-god

 

"[T]he consensus of the scholarly community" really does not impress me. (It was once the "consensus of the scholarly community" that the Earth is flat.)

I want real evidence.

What evidence do you have of your allegation?

Note: Wikipedia--in an article which hardly supports Christian fundamentalism--says that the Gospel of Mark dates from about AD 66-70: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

 

Probably not.

But can you effectively refute what it says, relevant to this discussion?

 

Do you really believe that "most people," in their everyday lives, act as though their actions are governed by a set of religious beliefs? (Note: The mere fact that they may attend church on Sunday--well, sometimes, at least--and put a little in the collection plate, is certainly not an indicator of being "religious.")

I can see what you are saying--a religion is a belief system--but, whereas all religions are belief systems, not all belief systems are religions. (The two propositions are not convertible.)

 

Then why, exactly, did you pursue this point?

(Note: it does prove the efficacy of empiricism; which, together with rationalism, comprise the only forms of reasoning that carry any weight, as far as I am concerned.)

Do you have a source for that, please?

(Note: Wikipedia uses the two terms interchangeably; and notes that "ad hominem" is "short for argumentum ad hominem," and that it is "an argument...rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Do, please, elucidate...

 

I simply cannot believe that you are serious.

This merely states that the canonical scriptures are "God-breathed"--the Koine Greek word typically translated "inspired" is theopneustos, which literally means "God" (theo) "breathed" (pneustos).

I take this (as most other Christians I believe, do also) as referring to God the Father--not to Jesus.

 

Look up the term confirmation bias and reread your own OP again.

You bring a horse to water but you can't make it think!

 

Now you are getting into semantic hair splitting.

Are you now claiming that jesus is not god and did not provide you with the "word of god"?

 

Jesus is a part of the Godhead (which is often referred to as the "Trinity"); but He is not (and never claimed to be) God the Father.

 

You do not seem to want to merely debate, but to implicitly insult.

If you do so again, I will simply ignore you...

 

I am a heathen but do visit different churches a couple times a year to enjoy people coming together, singing and listening. I also came across several different people use the tone of not religion but relationship. Not Faith but relationship.

Makes sense to me, if I was a person that was religious the relationship would be my main focus and any religious title would be secondary.

 

Wait, you wouldn't do the same with a scholarly article that I linked to, but now you want me to abide by a standard you won't hold yourself to?

 

So now you are denying you own religion's dogma.



Here are some verses that you obviously don't know about.

John 8:58-59 "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’

John 10:30-33 “‘I and the Father are one.’

 

Not my problem if you cannot accept your own confirmation bias.

 

Yes, and just because it is a belief system doesn't make it not objective. There is nothing inherent in the definition of religion that is anything to be ashamed about. So Christianity is a religion, and in your opinion it is an objective fact and in my opinion it is objectively false.

 

Okaaaaaaaaaay, so there is no God. Prove it. Nobody has ever been able to prove it in a way that science itself can accept via its own standards for proof. But perhaps you will be the first to be able to do so. There has got to be at least a Nobel Prize in the office for the first person to generate irrefutable . . . proof.

 

The term, "scholarly article," amounts to weasel words. It seems to imply that if the authors are "scholar[ly]" enough, the rest of us should blindly accept what they say--without any supporting evidence.

That is a standard that I simply so not accept--as regarding anything.

 

Despite your implication, I am well aware of those verses.

Jesus was part of the Godhead (a.k.a. the Trinity); but He was not God the Father. In fact, He sometimes even prayed to Him.

But to return to the original point: I most certainly do not believe in the so-called "Dictation Theory" of inspiration--in which God the Father (no, not Jesus) merely dictated the words of Holy Scripture, and the authors simply transcribed them.

In fact, I know of no serious theologian who believes any such thing.

 

That is known as the fallacy of the complex question (as in, for instance, "Why are you so pigheaded?")

But since you insist upon insulting, rather than just debating, I will correspond with you no further.

Presumably, that will have no serious impact upon you, since you do not consider it to be your "problem."

 

On that point, I agree.

I just cannot imagine why you would insist that Christianity must be a religion.

 

The fact that Jesus rose from His death; and that a very large stone was (irrefutably!) moved, that entombed Jesus; should be sufficient proof to satisfy even the most skeptical.

 

There are all sorts of reasons to believe that Jesus Christ was real and that he really did what was attributed to him; and his deniers cannot PROVE their assertions. On the other hand his believers cannot prove theirs. It's a matter of faith; which Jesus was in favor of anyway.

 

But you do believe that jesus rose from the dead after 3 days and had the strength to roll away the rock all by himself even though he is not god!

The Chinese Menu approach to Christianity where you pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore contradicts the OP allegation that it is an "absolute truth".

Look up the term "absolute" for yourself. You will discover that it means "total" and "complete". You are denying that "absoluteness" by disparaging the parts where jesus claims to be god.

That says volumes about your confirmation bias.

 

To better understand the basis for your belief that the Resurrection literally happened.

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem

Definitions are often contextual. There is a difference between making another the topic and attacking another persons character. It would be an ad hominem if I said that you only believe that the Resurrection happened because you are a Christian (See definition one). It would be an ad hominem attack if I said that you are an idiot to believe that the Resurrection literally happened (See definition two). (Note these are only examples of an ad hominem and an ad hominem attack. I do not believe that you are an idiot.)