|
Post by cheryl8787 on Sept 29, 2023 7:02:59 GMT -5
I've watched people exit the 2x2s for decades now, and there definitely are some trends about exiting which have become apparent. I'd like to share what I have learned from watching this process, maybe it will help someone.
The most obvious is the Christian versus non-Christian split. Some folks figure out that 2x2ism is a heretical sect and try to find out what actual Christianity is by joining another church. The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false.
Within the folks who move from the 2x2 church to another church, there are four basic layers of the onion they may or may not peel back in their journey. The first layer of the onion is the exclusivity layer. This hurdle of accepting that there might be other 'saved' people in the world other than 2x2s is generally the first step to considering that another church might be acceptable. Does this mean that the reformed 2x2 is in communion with all other Christians? No, because exclusivity is only one of many heresies that the 2x2 has embedded in her mind. Upon leaving the exclusivity orbit, the reformed 2x2 will likely consider fundamentalist churches a good fit for her. So, various strains of Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, and many non-denominational places.
If the reformed 2x2 peels back the second layer of her 2x2 indoctrination, she will realize that not only was she in an exclusivitist sect, but also in a Fundamentalist sect. Yes, Fundamentalism is a very extreme variant of Christianity, extreme in that it takes the Old Testament to be literally and historically true. This is not what the vast majority of Christians believe nor is it what any Christian scholars believe (other than quacks). Fundamentalists are a small percentage of Christians, and are almost exclusivity concentrated in the USA and a few other English-speaking countries, though recent years have been making headway among other uneducated peoples in developing countries. This is sad because Fundamentalism is generally also what the ex-2x2er who becomes an atheist is actually opposed to, but doesn't know it. By removing the Fundamentalist layer of the onion, the reformed 2x2 will explore such churches as Methodist, Congregationalist, United Church of Canada, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, other Calvinist churches, and some strains of Baptists. This will put the reformed 2x2 in communion with about 25% of the world's Christians
The third layer of 2x2 indoctrination is a much bigger big leap to see and ultimately peel back. This is the layer of anti-liturgicalism, sometimes referred to as Calvinism. The anti-liturgical strain makes reformed 2x2s stay clear of any church which has any adornments inside the church, any vestments on the clergy, any prescribed structure to the worship service. Very few reformed 2x2s can get over this hurdle because of their indoctrination of needing to be in a 'restorative' early New Testament church. For them, restorative means simplicity in all things, Puritanical. If the reformed 2x2 can see the folly of this hurdle, she will explore such liturgical churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, Church of Sweden, Eastern Orthodox, etc. With this move, the reformed 2x2 will now be in communion with about 50% of the world's Christians.
The final layer of the onion of 2x2 indoctrination to peel back is the anti-Catholic layer. Given that 2x2ism was started in Northern Ireland, it should be no surprise that it is a virulently anti-Catholic sect. There are various forms of Catholicism, to which the reformed 2x2 is likely not even aware of, as the reformed 2x2's major mental roadblock is the Roman Catholic (aka Latin) Church - the one headquartered in Vatican City. The reformed 2x2 has a litany of reasons to support her anti-Catholicism, but all of them are strawman arguments based on misunderstanding or fabrications - no different than the other Fundamentalist and Calvinist critiques of the Latin Church. By removing this final layer of indoctrination and recognizing that Roman Catholics are legitimate Christians, the reformed 2x2 will have now included the remaining 50% of Christians into her communion.
It's very important for 2x2s who begin their de-programming process to understand that they are/were in a Restorative Fundamentalist Protestant exclusivist sect. It's layers of heresy, and it needs to be unwound.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 29, 2023 8:17:34 GMT -5
I've watched people exit the 2x2s for decades now, and there definitely are some trends about exiting which have become apparent. I'd like to share what I have learned from watching this process, maybe it will help someone.
The most obvious is the Christian versus non-Christian split. Some folks figure out that 2x2ism is a heretical sect and try to find out what actual Christianity is by joining another church. The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false.
Within the folks who move from the 2x2 church to another church, there are four basic layers of the onion they may or may not peel back in their journey. The first layer of the onion is the exclusivity layer. This hurdle of accepting that there might be other 'saved' people in the world other than 2x2s is generally the first step to considering that another church might be acceptable. Does this mean that the reformed 2x2 is in communion with all other Christians? No, because exclusivity is only one of many heresies that the 2x2 has embedded in her mind. Upon leaving the exclusivity orbit, the reformed 2x2 will likely consider fundamentalist churches a good fit for her. So, various strains of Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, and many non-denominational places.
If the reformed 2x2 peels back the second layer of her 2x2 indoctrination, she will realize that not only was she in an exclusivitist sect, but also in a Fundamentalist sect. Yes, Fundamentalism is a very extreme variant of Christianity, extreme in that it takes the Old Testament to be literally and historically true. This is not what the vast majority of Christians believe nor is it what any Christian scholars believe (other than quacks). Fundamentalists are a small percentage of Christians, and are almost exclusivity concentrated in the USA and a few other English-speaking countries, though recent years have been making headway among other uneducated peoples in developing countries. This is sad because Fundamentalism is generally also what the ex-2x2er who becomes an atheist is actually opposed to, but doesn't know it. By removing the Fundamentalist layer of the onion, the reformed 2x2 will explore such churches as Methodist, Congregationalist, United Church of Canada, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, other Calvinist churches, and some strains of Baptists. This will put the reformed 2x2 in communion with about 25% of the world's Christians
The third layer of 2x2 indoctrination is a much bigger big leap to see and ultimately peel back. This is the layer of anti-liturgicalism, sometimes referred to as Calvinism. The anti-liturgical strain makes reformed 2x2s stay clear of any church which has any adornments inside the church, any vestments on the clergy, any prescribed structure to the worship service. Very few reformed 2x2s can get over this hurdle because of their indoctrination of needing to be in a 'restorative' early New Testament church. For them, restorative means simplicity in all things, Puritanical. If the reformed 2x2 can see the folly of this hurdle, she will explore such liturgical churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, Church of Sweden, Eastern Orthodox, etc. With this move, the reformed 2x2 will now be in communion with about 50% of the world's Christians.
The final layer of the onion of 2x2 indoctrination to peel back is the anti-Catholic layer. Given that 2x2ism was started in Northern Ireland, it should be no surprise that it is a virulently anti-Catholic sect. There are various forms of Catholicism, to which the reformed 2x2 is likely not even aware of, as the reformed 2x2's major mental roadblock is the Roman Catholic (aka Latin) Church - the one headquartered in Vatican City. The reformed 2x2 has a litany of reasons to support her anti-Catholicism, but all of them are strawman arguments based on misunderstanding or fabrications - no different than the other Fundamentalist and Calvinist critiques of the Latin Church. By removing this final layer of indoctrination and recognizing that Roman Catholics are legitimate Christians, the reformed 2x2 will have now included the remaining 50% of Christians into her communion.
It's very important for 2x2s who begin their de-programming process to understand that they are/were in a Restorative Fundamentalist Protestant exclusivist sect. It's layers of heresy, and it needs to be unwound.
Catholicism is nothing like the way of Jesus, neither are many Protestant churches. For one, idol worship is wrong before God and they worship many idols in built up churches with a false foundation. Jesus didn't care about temples made with hands, he cared about the hearts of the people.
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Sept 29, 2023 8:31:08 GMT -5
they are/were in a Restorative Fundamentalist Protestant exclusivist sect. It's layers of heresy, and it needs to be unwound.
Catholicism is nothing like the way of Jesus, neither are many Protestant churches. For one, idol worship is wrong before God and they worship many idols in built up churches with a false foundation. Jesus didn't care about temples made with hands, he cared about the hearts of the people. Thank you for illustrating where you are in the onion layers.
|
|
|
Post by deepdeep on Sept 29, 2023 9:13:55 GMT -5
I've watched people exit the 2x2s for decades now, and there definitely are some trends about exiting which have become apparent. I'd like to share what I have learned from watching this process, maybe it will help someone.
The most obvious is the Christian versus non-Christian split. Some folks figure out that 2x2ism is a heretical sect and try to find out what actual Christianity is by joining another church. The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false.
Within the folks who move from the 2x2 church to another church, there are four basic layers of the onion they may or may not peel back in their journey. The first layer of the onion is the exclusivity layer. This hurdle of accepting that there might be other 'saved' people in the world other than 2x2s is generally the first step to considering that another church might be acceptable. Does this mean that the reformed 2x2 is in communion with all other Christians? No, because exclusivity is only one of many heresies that the 2x2 has embedded in her mind. Upon leaving the exclusivity orbit, the reformed 2x2 will likely consider fundamentalist churches a good fit for her. So, various strains of Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, and many non-denominational places.
If the reformed 2x2 peels back the second layer of her 2x2 indoctrination, she will realize that not only was she in an exclusivitist sect, but also in a Fundamentalist sect. Yes, Fundamentalism is a very extreme variant of Christianity, extreme in that it takes the Old Testament to be literally and historically true. This is not what the vast majority of Christians believe nor is it what any Christian scholars believe (other than quacks). Fundamentalists are a small percentage of Christians, and are almost exclusivity concentrated in the USA and a few other English-speaking countries, though recent years have been making headway among other uneducated peoples in developing countries. This is sad because Fundamentalism is generally also what the ex-2x2er who becomes an atheist is actually opposed to, but doesn't know it. By removing the Fundamentalist layer of the onion, the reformed 2x2 will explore such churches as Methodist, Congregationalist, United Church of Canada, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, other Calvinist churches, and some strains of Baptists. This will put the reformed 2x2 in communion with about 25% of the world's Christians
The third layer of 2x2 indoctrination is a much bigger big leap to see and ultimately peel back. This is the layer of anti-liturgicalism, sometimes referred to as Calvinism. The anti-liturgical strain makes reformed 2x2s stay clear of any church which has any adornments inside the church, any vestments on the clergy, any prescribed structure to the worship service. Very few reformed 2x2s can get over this hurdle because of their indoctrination of needing to be in a 'restorative' early New Testament church. For them, restorative means simplicity in all things, Puritanical. If the reformed 2x2 can see the folly of this hurdle, she will explore such liturgical churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, Church of Sweden, Eastern Orthodox, etc. With this move, the reformed 2x2 will now be in communion with about 50% of the world's Christians.
The final layer of the onion of 2x2 indoctrination to peel back is the anti-Catholic layer. Given that 2x2ism was started in Northern Ireland, it should be no surprise that it is a virulently anti-Catholic sect. There are various forms of Catholicism, to which the reformed 2x2 is likely not even aware of, as the reformed 2x2's major mental roadblock is the Roman Catholic (aka Latin) Church - the one headquartered in Vatican City. The reformed 2x2 has a litany of reasons to support her anti-Catholicism, but all of them are strawman arguments based on misunderstanding or fabrications - no different than the other Fundamentalist and Calvinist critiques of the Latin Church. By removing this final layer of indoctrination and recognizing that Roman Catholics are legitimate Christians, the reformed 2x2 will have now included the remaining 50% of Christians into her communion.
It's very important for 2x2s who begin their de-programming process to understand that they are/were in a Restorative Fundamentalist Protestant exclusivist sect. It's layers of heresy, and it needs to be unwound.
Interesting...from my own observations (anecdotal and non-scientific), as it relates to 2x2ism, the layers you describe are probably real but they are extremely fuzzy and non-overlapping. In that sense they are probably not layers at all. By fuzzy...i mean that without a written and agreed upon "doctrine" outside of the bible, it is hard to identify the ideological currents that distinguish 2x2s from other forms of christianity. Questions pertaining to this point would be: Do the answers to questions of exclusivity, fundamentalism, and anti-liturgicalism or Catholicism given by 2x2s about themselves vary? My own observations (again, anecdotal) is that the anti-Catholicism sentiment would be quite uniform followed by the anti-liturgical and then the exclusivity and fundamentalism would be all over the place. Are there liturgical fundamentalists? anti-liturgical non-fundamentalists? does it vary over time? The one thing I keep seeing is pseudo-analysis done by people who have/had an association with the sect. This analysis tends to paints the 2x2's as some sort of special case that requires insider knowledge to understand. I continue to not see the "special-ness" of the 2x2's. All I see is nominally christian social tradition with a distinctly post reconstruction American flavor. Everything else seems very subjective.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 29, 2023 10:18:07 GMT -5
Catholicism is nothing like the way of Jesus, neither are many Protestant churches. For one, idol worship is wrong before God and they worship many idols in built up churches with a false foundation. Jesus didn't care about temples made with hands, he cared about the hearts of the people. Thank you for illustrating where you are in the onion layers.
Tell me this, is it in the Bible that we are to worship Idols and statues? Say hail Mary's to Mary for forgiveness of sins? Worship Mary and call Mary the mother of God? Etc. Where does Jesus teach this in the gospel? You might see me as a within a layer of an onion, but I don't care as I'm speaking the truth. Can you please show me where these things are in the Bible? Chapter and verse? Thank you. By the way, I'm not against the people, but I believe that the churches false doctrine and the organisation within it are wrong before God.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 29, 2023 13:30:17 GMT -5
Thank you for illustrating where you are in the onion layers.
Tell me this, is it in the Bible that we are to worship Idols and statues? Say hail Mary's to Mary for forgiveness of sins? Worship Mary and call Mary the mother of God? Etc. Where does Jesus teach this in the gospel? You might see me as a within a layer of an onion, but I don't care as I'm speaking the truth. Can you please show me where these things are in the Bible? Chapter and verse? Thank you. By the way, I'm not against the people, but I believe that the churches false doctrine and the organisation within it are wrong before God. While I agree with you about what you believe, I must point out that the actual history of the bible and Christianity in general was very much influenced by the RCC. The books you read in the bible were the ones chosen by the RCC to be there. Early bishops like Polycarp and Irenaeus of Lyons, were very influential in that regard. The Nicene Creed and other aspects of the doctrine were decided by the early church fathers. So the bible Christians read today is very much the product of what the RCC wanted to make doctrine. These early church fathers were the ones that were so against the Gnostic gospels. They didn't support a patriarchy religion which was what they wanted to push forward. The Gnostic Gospels were much more oriented towards the equality of women and men in regards to preaching the gospel for example. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene actually points towards the feelings Jesus had towards Mary and her role in the early apostles. Peter did not like her and spoke against her, angry with Jesus' relationship with her. The other apostles regularly told Peter to quit questioning Jesus. And, who is the first pope of the RCC. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 29, 2023 14:32:06 GMT -5
Tell me this, is it in the Bible that we are to worship Idols and statues? Say hail Mary's to Mary for forgiveness of sins? Worship Mary and call Mary the mother of God? Etc. Where does Jesus teach this in the gospel? You might see me as a within a layer of an onion, but I don't care as I'm speaking the truth. Can you please show me where these things are in the Bible? Chapter and verse? Thank you. By the way, I'm not against the people, but I believe that the churches false doctrine and the organisation within it are wrong before God. While I agree with you about what you believe, I must point out that the actual history of the bible and Christianity in general was very much influenced by the RCC. The books you read in the bible were the ones chosen by the RCC to be there. Early bishops like Polycarp and Irenaeus of Lyons, were very influential in that regard. The Nicene Creed and other aspects of the doctrine were decided by the early church fathers. So the bible Christians read today is very much the product of what the RCC wanted to make doctrine. These early church fathers were the ones that were so against the Gnostic gospels. They didn't support a patriarchy religion which was what they wanted to push forward. The Gnostic Gospels were much more oriented towards the equality of women and men in regards to preaching the gospel for example. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene actually points towards the feelings Jesus had towards Mary and her role in the early apostles. Peter did not like her and spoke against her, angry with Jesus' relationship with her. The other apostles regularly told Peter to quit questioning Jesus. And, who is the first pope of the RCC. Peter. Hiya snow, I believe that God has what he wants in the Bible regardless of how it got there. I believe that the gospels and the word that Jesus preaches are the truth and I've seen so many things in it. I believe Mary was very important to Jesus, she was the first to see him risen, but I don't believe she was his wife or anything like that like some people say, but a true follower of him. I also believe that the Bible supports women speaking the word of God, in the old testament there were women prophetesses and judges, they wouldn't have been in those positions if women were not allowed to speak. And also there were women who spoke the word of God in the new testament like Priscilla and pheobe to name a couple. We are all one in Christ, we are all one body, and our head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. And there's this Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. I see the Bible very differently to many others, as you know, and I don't see it all as literal and it is full of deeper meanings right though it. I'd love to share sometimes, but when I have done so, it gets twisted by some to suit their beliefs so I'm careful what I say now. I honestly think you would like our meetings, and if you're ever in Wales UK you're welcome to come our doors would be open to you any of you on here. By the way, Peter wasn't the first pope, that's another man made idea!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 29, 2023 14:47:14 GMT -5
While I agree with you about what you believe, I must point out that the actual history of the bible and Christianity in general was very much influenced by the RCC. The books you read in the bible were the ones chosen by the RCC to be there. Early bishops like Polycarp and Irenaeus of Lyons, were very influential in that regard. The Nicene Creed and other aspects of the doctrine were decided by the early church fathers. So the bible Christians read today is very much the product of what the RCC wanted to make doctrine. These early church fathers were the ones that were so against the Gnostic gospels. They didn't support a patriarchy religion which was what they wanted to push forward. The Gnostic Gospels were much more oriented towards the equality of women and men in regards to preaching the gospel for example. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene actually points towards the feelings Jesus had towards Mary and her role in the early apostles. Peter did not like her and spoke against her, angry with Jesus' relationship with her. The other apostles regularly told Peter to quit questioning Jesus. And, who is the first pope of the RCC. Peter. While I agree with you about what you believe, I must point out that the actual history of the bible and Christianity in general was very much influenced by the RCC. The books you read in the bible were the ones chosen by the RCC to be there. Early bishops like Polycarp and Irenaeus of Lyons, were very influential in that regard. The Nicene Creed and other aspects of the doctrine were decided by the early church fathers. So the bible Christians read today is very much the product of what the RCC wanted to make doctrine. These early church fathers were the ones that were so against the Gnostic gospels. They didn't support a patriarchy religion which was what they wanted to push forward. The Gnostic Gospels were much more oriented towards the equality of women and men in regards to preaching the gospel for example. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene actually points towards the feelings Jesus had towards Mary and her role in the early apostles. Peter did not like her and spoke against her, angry with Jesus' relationship with her. The other apostles regularly told Peter to quit questioning Jesus. And, who is the first pope of the RCC. Peter. Hiya snow, I believe that God has what he wants in the Bible regardless of how it got there. I believe that the gospels and the word that Jesus preaches are the truth and I've seen so many things in it. I believe Mary was very important to Jesus, she was the first to see him risen, but I don't believe she was his wife or anything like that like some people say, but a true follower of him. I also believe that the Bible supports women speaking the word of God, in the old testament there were women prophetesses and judges, they wouldn't have been in those positions if women were not allowed to speak. And also there were women who spoke the word of God in the new testament like Priscilla and pheobe to name a couple. We are all one in Christ, we are all one body, and our head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. And there's this Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. I see the Bible very differently to many others, as you know, and I don't see it all as literal and it is full of deeper meanings right though it. I'd love to share sometimes, but when I have done so, it gets twisted by some to suit their beliefs so I'm careful what I say now. I honestly think you would like our meetings, and if you're ever in Wales UK you're welcome to come our doors would be open to you any of you on here. By the way, Peter wasn't the first pope, that's another man made idea! No I don't believe Mary Magdalene was his wife. What I'm saying according to some of the Gnostic Gospels is that she held a very high level role and literally was an apostle also. But the RCC didn't like that for their agenda of a male hierarchy and they fought to eliminate any material that made their position wrong. When you say that Peter wasn't the first pope, you completely ignore the fact that the RCC literally have his tomb under the Vatican and call Peter the first pope. It's a fact that he is their first pope. Of course it's all man made. That's what organized religions are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 29, 2023 15:15:38 GMT -5
Hiya snow, I believe that God has what he wants in the Bible regardless of how it got there. I believe that the gospels and the word that Jesus preaches are the truth and I've seen so many things in it. I believe Mary was very important to Jesus, she was the first to see him risen, but I don't believe she was his wife or anything like that like some people say, but a true follower of him. I also believe that the Bible supports women speaking the word of God, in the old testament there were women prophetesses and judges, they wouldn't have been in those positions if women were not allowed to speak. And also there were women who spoke the word of God in the new testament like Priscilla and pheobe to name a couple. We are all one in Christ, we are all one body, and our head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. And there's this Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. I see the Bible very differently to many others, as you know, and I don't see it all as literal and it is full of deeper meanings right though it. I'd love to share sometimes, but when I have done so, it gets twisted by some to suit their beliefs so I'm careful what I say now. I honestly think you would like our meetings, and if you're ever in Wales UK you're welcome to come our doors would be open to you any of you on here. By the way, Peter wasn't the first pope, that's another man made idea! No I don't believe Mary Magdalene was his wife. What I'm saying according to some of the Gnostic Gospels is that she held a very high level role and literally was an apostle also. But the RCC didn't like that for their agenda of a male hierarchy and they fought to eliminate any material that made their position wrong. When you say that Peter wasn't the first pope, you completely ignore the fact that the RCC literally have his tomb under the Vatican and call Peter the first pope. It's a fact that he is their first pope. Of course it's all man made. That's what organized religions are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb Ah I get you, yes they have made him the first pope in their eyes but he wasn't any Pope at all. And I believe Mary played a very high roll but I don't know about an apostle but I believe she became strong and faithful in God or Jesus wouldn't have visited her first after his resurrection. And yes I believe religion is man made, but Jesus isn't a religion as we see it, he's a way, showing and teaching us the way to God. We don't need all these denominations we just need to follow the simple way of Jesus as he taught in the gospels, and the way that he taught us to live. He said, I am the way, the truth and the life. And no man comes to the father but by him, because he's showing us the true way to live before God. He's the way to God, he bore witness to the truth, bringing us a new and living way to follow, and he brings us life through the living word of God and those hear his voice follow him in the way and they live it out in their daily lives.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 29, 2023 15:45:32 GMT -5
No I don't believe Mary Magdalene was his wife. What I'm saying according to some of the Gnostic Gospels is that she held a very high level role and literally was an apostle also. But the RCC didn't like that for their agenda of a male hierarchy and they fought to eliminate any material that made their position wrong. When you say that Peter wasn't the first pope, you completely ignore the fact that the RCC literally have his tomb under the Vatican and call Peter the first pope. It's a fact that he is their first pope. Of course it's all man made. That's what organized religions are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb Ah I get you, yes they have made him the first pope in their eyes but he wasn't any Pope at all. And I believe Mary played a very high roll but I don't know about an apostle but I believe she became strong and faithful in God or Jesus wouldn't have visited her first after his resurrection. And yes I believe religion is man made, but Jesus isn't a religion as we see it, he's a way, showing and teaching us the way to God. We don't need all these denominations we just need to follow the simple way of Jesus as he taught in the gospels, and the way that he taught us to live. He said, I am the way, the truth and the life. And no man comes to the father but by him, because he's showing us the true way to live before God. He's the way to God, he bore witness to the truth, bringing us a new and living way to follow, and he brings us life through the living word of God and those hear his voice follow him in the way and they live it out in their daily lives. I am in favor of all the people that have tried to lead the world in the way of 'love they neighbor'. There have been a fair number that tried to get us to be kinder and gentler with each other. Some like Jesus based it on our getting into heaven, but others just pointed it out as a better way to live in our world. I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2023 16:35:22 GMT -5
I've watched people exit the 2x2s for decades now, and there definitely are some trends about exiting which have become apparent. I'd like to share what I have learned from watching this process, maybe it will help someone.
The most obvious is the Christian versus non-Christian split. Some folks figure out that 2x2ism is a heretical sect and try to find out what actual Christianity is by joining another church. The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false.
Within the folks who move from the 2x2 church to another church, there are four basic layers of the onion they may or may not peel back in their journey. The first layer of the onion is the exclusivity layer. This hurdle of accepting that there might be other 'saved' people in the world other than 2x2s is generally the first step to considering that another church might be acceptable. Does this mean that the reformed 2x2 is in communion with all other Christians? No, because exclusivity is only one of many heresies that the 2x2 has embedded in her mind. Upon leaving the exclusivity orbit, the reformed 2x2 will likely consider fundamentalist churches a good fit for her. So, various strains of Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, and many non-denominational places.
If the reformed 2x2 peels back the second layer of her 2x2 indoctrination, she will realize that not only was she in an exclusivitist sect, but also in a Fundamentalist sect. Yes, Fundamentalism is a very extreme variant of Christianity, extreme in that it takes the Old Testament to be literally and historically true. This is not what the vast majority of Christians believe nor is it what any Christian scholars believe (other than quacks). Fundamentalists are a small percentage of Christians, and are almost exclusivity concentrated in the USA and a few other English-speaking countries, though recent years have been making headway among other uneducated peoples in developing countries. This is sad because Fundamentalism is generally also what the ex-2x2er who becomes an atheist is actually opposed to, but doesn't know it. By removing the Fundamentalist layer of the onion, the reformed 2x2 will explore such churches as Methodist, Congregationalist, United Church of Canada, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, other Calvinist churches, and some strains of Baptists. This will put the reformed 2x2 in communion with about 25% of the world's Christians
The third layer of 2x2 indoctrination is a much bigger big leap to see and ultimately peel back. This is the layer of anti-liturgicalism, sometimes referred to as Calvinism. The anti-liturgical strain makes reformed 2x2s stay clear of any church which has any adornments inside the church, any vestments on the clergy, any prescribed structure to the worship service. Very few reformed 2x2s can get over this hurdle because of their indoctrination of needing to be in a 'restorative' early New Testament church. For them, restorative means simplicity in all things, Puritanical. If the reformed 2x2 can see the folly of this hurdle, she will explore such liturgical churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, Church of Sweden, Eastern Orthodox, etc. With this move, the reformed 2x2 will now be in communion with about 50% of the world's Christians.
The final layer of the onion of 2x2 indoctrination to peel back is the anti-Catholic layer. Given that 2x2ism was started in Northern Ireland, it should be no surprise that it is a virulently anti-Catholic sect. There are various forms of Catholicism, to which the reformed 2x2 is likely not even aware of, as the reformed 2x2's major mental roadblock is the Roman Catholic (aka Latin) Church - the one headquartered in Vatican City. The reformed 2x2 has a litany of reasons to support her anti-Catholicism, but all of them are strawman arguments based on misunderstanding or fabrications - no different than the other Fundamentalist and Calvinist critiques of the Latin Church. By removing this final layer of indoctrination and recognizing that Roman Catholics are legitimate Christians, the reformed 2x2 will have now included the remaining 50% of Christians into her communion.
It's very important for 2x2s who begin their de-programming process to understand that they are/were in a Restorative Fundamentalist Protestant exclusivist sect. It's layers of heresy, and it needs to be unwound.
When much better ill get to this.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 7, 2023 19:15:15 GMT -5
The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false. I'm in this 2nd group but see a difference, but perhaps it's not much of a distinction for some. I once thought, and still do, that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity. However with more life experience I have come to better appreciate and understand there is a lot of variation in denominations that represent themselves as Christians. From past threads here I learned that there is no one thing that all Christians can agree on. Even within a denomination there is disagreement, and even within any one church there will be disagreement. Religious "Truth" has not been shown to be "demonstrably true". You are always required to take a leap of faith. In science a truth claim is provisional, a thing is believed to be true for as long as it can not be shown to be false. I find science is the best way of knowing vs. religion. The default position in science and logic is always disbelief. Science does not require a belief for a thing to be true. A thing can be true regardless of what you believe. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Relying on this approach has brought humanity from the stone age to the modern age. Today when someone identifies as a Christian, I no longer assume I know what they believe. However by asking a few questions I can get in their neighborhood. By definition each denomination is a unique variation of Christianity. The 2x2 proposition of Christianity has as much credibility as many other denominations. Even the problems with CSA and SA are not unique to the 2x2. Lying about the origins is also not unique to the 2x2. I can't think of any one 2x2 theological element that can not also be found in another denomination. They just have their own special mix that is what they repeatedly assert as the one and only true recipe, like everyone else. Religious truth has not been shown to be demonstrably true, and there is disagreement between denomination about what is true; as the wise saying goes; they all can't be right, but they all could be wrong. There are other denominations which if I had got involved with instead of the 2x2, I probably would have remained and not started to question and study religion. However the 2x2 caused me to become skeptical about the "truth" claims of all religions. What I discovered was they all were just the ideas of men, and not of any divine intervention. So for me the argument goes more like; 2x2 has not been shown to be demonstrably true other Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true other non Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true It's possible religions may be true, but so far, none have been shown to be demonstrably true.
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.” ― Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Oct 8, 2023 3:55:26 GMT -5
The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false. I'm in this 2nd group but see a difference, but perhaps it's not much of a distinction for some. I once thought, and still do, that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity. However with more life experience I have come to better appreciate and understand there is a lot of variation in denominations that represent themselves as Christians. From past threads here I learned that there is no one thing that all Christians can agree on. Even within a denomination there is disagreement, and even within any one church there will be disagreement. Religious "Truth" has not been shown to be "demonstrably true". You are always required to take a leap of faith. In science a truth claim is provisional, a thing is believed to be true for as long as it can not be shown to be false. I find science is the best way of knowing vs. religion. The default position in science and logic is always disbelief. Science does not require a belief for a thing to be true. A thing can be true regardless of what you believe. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Relying on this approach has brought humanity from the stone age to the modern age. Today when someone identifies as a Christian, I no longer assume I know what they believe. However by asking a few questions I can get in their neighborhood. By definition each denomination is a unique variation of Christianity. The 2x2 proposition of Christianity has as much credibility as many other denominations. Even the problems with CSA and SA are not unique to the 2x2. Lying about the origins is also not unique to the 2x2. I can't think of any one 2x2 theological element that can not also be found in another denomination. They just have their own special mix that is what they repeatedly assert as the one and only true recipe, like everyone else. Since all religious truth has not been shown to be demonstrably true, and there is disagreement between denomination about what is true. As the wise saying goes; they all can't be right, but they all could be wrong. There are other denominations which if I had got involved with instead of the 2x2, I probably would have remained and not started to question and study religion. However the 2x2 caused me to become skeptical about the "truth" claims of all religions. What I discovered was they all were just the ideas of men, and not of any divine intervention. So for me the argument goes more like; 2x2 has not been shown to be demonstrably true other Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true other non Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true It's possible religions may be true, but so far, none have been shown to be demonstrably true.
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.” ― Thomas Sowell Thanks. I really enjoy your intelligent and well constructed posts XNA.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 8, 2023 8:08:00 GMT -5
I'm in this 2nd group but see a difference, but perhaps it's not much of a distinction for some. I once thought, and still do, that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity. However with more life experience I have come to better appreciate and understand there is a lot of variation in denominations that represent themselves as Christians. From past threads here I learned that there is no one thing that all Christians can agree on. Even within a denomination there is disagreement, and even within any one church there will be disagreement. Religious "Truth" has not been shown to be "demonstrably true". You are always required to take a leap of faith. In science a truth claim is provisional, a thing is believed to be true for as long as it can not be shown to be false. I find science is the best way of knowing vs. religion. The default position in science and logic is always disbelief. Science does not require a belief for a thing to be true. A thing can be true regardless of what you believe. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Relying on this approach has brought humanity from the stone age to the modern age. Today when someone identifies as a Christian, I no longer assume I know what they believe. However by asking a few questions I can get in their neighborhood. By definition each denomination is a unique variation of Christianity. The 2x2 proposition of Christianity has as much credibility as many other denominations. Even the problems with CSA and SA are not unique to the 2x2. Lying about the origins is also not unique to the 2x2. I can't think of any one 2x2 theological element that can not also be found in another denomination. They just have their own special mix that is what they repeatedly assert as the one and only true recipe, like everyone else. Since all religious truth has not been shown to be demonstrably true, and there is disagreement between denomination about what is true. As the wise saying goes; they all can't be right, but they all could be wrong. There are other denominations which if I had got involved with instead of the 2x2, I probably would have remained and not started to question and study religion. However the 2x2 caused me to become skeptical about the "truth" claims of all religions. What I discovered was they all were just the ideas of men, and not of any divine intervention. So for me the argument goes more like; 2x2 has not been shown to be demonstrably true other Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true other non Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true It's possible religions may be true, but so far, none have been shown to be demonstrably true.
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.” ― Thomas Sowell Thanks. I really enjoy your intelligent and well constructed posts XNA. The religious beliefs and practices of the Two by Twos (also known as the "Truth" or the "No-Name Church") are matters of faith, and like many religious beliefs, they are not subject to empirical or scientific proof. Religious beliefs are often deeply personal and vary widely among individuals and groups. The Two by Twos, like other religious movements, base their faith on a literal interpretation of the Bible and their own religious experiences. Whether these beliefs are "demonstrably true" depends on one's perspective and worldview. It's important to note that religious beliefs are typically based on faith, and they are not intended to be subjected to the same standards of empirical evidence as scientific claims. What one person believes to be true based on their faith, another person may not accept without their own personal faith experience.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 9:16:11 GMT -5
Whether these beliefs are "demonstrably true" depends on one's perspective and worldview.
... It's important to note that religious beliefs are typically based on faith, and they are not intended to be subjected to the same standards of empirical evidence as scientific claims. What one person believes to be true based on their faith, another person may not accept without their own personal faith experience.
I don't think one's perspective and worldview comes into play in determining if a thing is "demonstrably true". I understand "demonstrably true," to mean that there is substantial and verifiable evidence or proof available to support the assertion, making it beyond a reasonable doubt. When a claim is "demonstrably true" the assertion is not a matter of opinion or belief, but is firmly grounded in factual, observable, or provable information. For example; The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test. Some that hold a a literal belief in the bible and believe the bible story is true, but this literal belief in the bible story is not sufficient to pass the test of "demonstrably true". I use "demonstrably true" in contrast to "believed to be true". I find people can believe something is true that can not be shown to be "demonstrably true". A thing can be believed by someone to be true from; good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons. Many people hold beliefs that just make them happy. Others want to believe things which are in agreement with observed reality.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 10:21:35 GMT -5
Whether these beliefs are "demonstrably true" depends on one's perspective and worldview.
... It's important to note that religious beliefs are typically based on faith, and they are not intended to be subjected to the same standards of empirical evidence as scientific claims. What one person believes to be true based on their faith, another person may not accept without their own personal faith experience.
I don't think one's perspective and worldview comes into play in determining if a thing is "demonstrably true". I understand "demonstrably true," to mean that there is substantial and verifiable evidence or proof available to support the assertion, making it beyond a reasonable doubt. When a claim is "demonstrably true" the assertion is not a matter of opinion or belief, but is firmly grounded in factual, observable, or provable information. For example; The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test. Some that hold a a literal belief in the bible and believe the bible story is true, but this literal belief in the bible story is not sufficient to pass the test of "demonstrably true". I use "demonstrably true" in contrast to "believed to be true". I find people can believe something is true that can not be shown to be "demonstrably true". A thing can be believed by someone to be true from; good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons. Many people hold beliefs that just make them happy. Others want to believe things which are in agreement with observed reality. What age does the Bible say the age of the universe is? And where is it in the Bible? Thank you
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 11:29:13 GMT -5
I don't think one's perspective and worldview comes into play in determining if a thing is "demonstrably true". I understand "demonstrably true," to mean that there is substantial and verifiable evidence or proof available to support the assertion, making it beyond a reasonable doubt. When a claim is "demonstrably true" the assertion is not a matter of opinion or belief, but is firmly grounded in factual, observable, or provable information. For example; The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test. Some that hold a a literal belief in the bible and believe the bible story is true, but this literal belief in the bible story is not sufficient to pass the test of "demonstrably true". I use "demonstrably true" in contrast to "believed to be true". I find people can believe something is true that can not be shown to be "demonstrably true". A thing can be believed by someone to be true from; good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons. Many people hold beliefs that just make them happy. Others want to believe things which are in agreement with observed reality. What age does the Bible say the age of the universe is? And where is it in the Bible? Thank you Young Earth Creationists typically use a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the genealogies and creation accounts in the book of Genesis, to establish their belief in a young Earth. They calculate the age of the Earth by tracing the genealogies listed in the Bible, which they believe provide a chronological timeline from the creation of Adam and Eve to the present day. Based on this interpretation, they commonly assert that the Earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. One of the most well-known Young Earth Creationists who attempted to calculate the age of the Earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible was James Ussher, an Irish archbishop and scholar. In the 17th century, Ussher famously calculated the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years old. His work, "Annals of the World," published in the early 17th century, is often cited as a significant influence on the belief in a young Earth among some religious groups. However, it's important to emphasize that Ussher's calculations are not scientifically accepted today. Whereas mainstream science, which relies on extensive evidence from various fields such as geology, astronomy, and radiometric dating to estimate the Earth's age as approximately 4.5 billion years.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 8, 2023 11:35:36 GMT -5
The second group falsely believes that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity, and since 2x2ism is false, then Christianity is false. I'm in this 2nd group but see a difference, but perhaps it's not much of a distinction for some. I once thought, and still do, that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity. However with more life experience I have come to better appreciate and understand there is a lot of variation in denominations that represent themselves as Christians. From past threads here I learned that there is no one thing that all Christians can agree on. Even within a denomination there is disagreement, and even within any one church there will be disagreement. Religious "Truth" has not been shown to be "demonstrably true". You are always required to take a leap of faith. In science a truth claim is provisional, a thing is believed to be true for as long as it can not be shown to be false. I find science is the best way of knowing vs. religion. The default position in science and logic is always disbelief. Science does not require a belief for a thing to be true. A thing can be true regardless of what you believe. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Relying on this approach has brought humanity from the stone age to the modern age. Today when someone identifies as a Christian, I no longer assume I know what they believe. However by asking a few questions I can get in their neighborhood. By definition each denomination is a unique variation of Christianity. The 2x2 proposition of Christianity has as much credibility as many other denominations. Even the problems with CSA and SA are not unique to the 2x2. Lying about the origins is also not unique to the 2x2. I can't think of any one 2x2 theological element that can not also be found in another denomination. They just have their own special mix that is what they repeatedly assert as the one and only true recipe, like everyone else. Religious truth has not been shown to be demonstrably true, and there is disagreement between denomination about what is true; as the wise saying goes; they all can't be right, but they all could be wrong. There are other denominations which if I had got involved with instead of the 2x2, I probably would have remained and not started to question and study religion. However the 2x2 caused me to become skeptical about the "truth" claims of all religions. What I discovered was they all were just the ideas of men, and not of any divine intervention. So for me the argument goes more like; 2x2 has not been shown to be demonstrably true other Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true other non Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true It's possible religions may be true, but so far, none have been shown to be demonstrably true.
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.” ― Thomas Sowell
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference .
I understand your point about the differences in denominations, but most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; 1. Christ is the Son of God. 2. He came for the remission of sin. 3. He is the only way to salvation. 4. His sacrifice and resurrection. 5. He's coming back in judgement.. Believing these fundamentals makes you a Christian. Sure, scripture lawyers disagree on details, but the basic faith is not convoluted.
If a scientific claim (hypothesis/theory) is provisional and should be accepted as a truth until proven false, why not apply that same standard to Christ? No one has proven him false!
My point is that the Truth is not a religion, there's one path to salvation and its not a church.
And I'd assert that despite Thomas Sowell opinion, there is as much subjective evidence to support biblical truth as there is for many scientific theories. Belief is required no matter what direction one decides to go.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 12:25:24 GMT -5
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference . Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. I understand your point about the differences in denominations, but most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; "most" is not all. Can you name one tenet "all" Christians agree on? If a scientific claim (hypothesis/theory) is provisional and should be accepted as a truth until proven false, why not apply that same standard to Christ? No one has proven him false! The Christ as described in the bible has not been proven to be demonstrably true. What we have is a story. Some said the Shroud of Turin was evidence but that turned out to be a fake. My point is that the Truth is not a religion, there's one path to salvation and its not a church. That is a belief. And I'd assert that despite Thomas Sowell opinion, there is as much subjective evidence to support biblical truth as there is for many scientific theories. Belief is required no matter what direction one decides to go.
You are expressing your personal subjective belief. Subjective belief refers to information or data that is based on personal opinions, interpretations, beliefs, feelings, or experiences, rather than being rooted in objective and verifiable facts. This type of evidence is inherently influenced by an individual's perspective, emotions, and biases, and it may not be consistent or reliable when assessed by others. Belief, in the sense of personal faith or conviction, is not required to prove a scientific theory. This is the general process for developing and testing a scientific theory. Hypothesis Formation: Scientists formulate hypotheses based on observations, previous research, and existing knowledge. These hypotheses are educated guesses about how certain phenomena in the natural world work. Experimentation and Observation: Experiments and observations are conducted to collect empirical data. These experiments are designed to test the predictions made by the hypothesis. The data collected should be objective and replicable. Data Analysis: The collected data is analyzed using statistical and analytical techniques to identify patterns, relationships, and trends. Peer Review: Scientists submit their research and findings to peer-reviewed journals. Experts in the field review the work for its methodology, data analysis, and conclusions. This step ensures that the research is subjected to critical scrutiny by the scientific community. Reproducibility: Scientific results should be reproducible. Other researchers should be able to conduct similar experiments and obtain similar results, independently verifying the findings. Consensus Building: Over time, as more evidence accumulates and more researchers independently confirm the results, a scientific theory may emerge. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence. Revision and Refinement: Scientific theories are subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as the understanding of a phenomenon deepens. They are not set in stone but adapt to the best available evidence. In the scientific process, personal beliefs and convictions are generally considered irrelevant. Scientists strive for objectivity and rely on empirical evidence and critical thinking to support or refute hypotheses and theories. The strength of scientific theories lies in their ability to make accurate predictions and explain natural phenomena based on empirical evidence, rather than personal beliefs or faith.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 8, 2023 12:30:12 GMT -5
Whether these beliefs are "demonstrably true" depends on one's perspective and worldview.
... It's important to note that religious beliefs are typically based on faith, and they are not intended to be subjected to the same standards of empirical evidence as scientific claims. What one person believes to be true based on their faith, another person may not accept without their own personal faith experience.
I don't think one's perspective and worldview comes into play in determining if a thing is "demonstrably true". I understand "demonstrably true," to mean that there is substantial and verifiable evidence or proof available to support the assertion, making it beyond a reasonable doubt. When a claim is "demonstrably true" the assertion is not a matter of opinion or belief, but is firmly grounded in factual, observable, or provable information. For example; The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test. Some that hold a a literal belief in the bible and believe the bible story is true, but this literal belief in the bible story is not sufficient to pass the test of "demonstrably true". I use "demonstrably true" in contrast to "believed to be true". I find people can believe something is true that can not be shown to be "demonstrably true". A thing can be believed by someone to be true from; good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons. Many people hold beliefs that just make them happy. Others want to believe things which are in agreement with observed reality. That's how it's become for me too over the years. Demonstrably true is important for me to decide what I can trust. Beliefs can be comforting only if you can believe them to be true. Once I saw how unlikely it was that what I grown up being taught to be true was, there was no going back. It could no longer bring me comfort because it was no longer 'demonstrably true' for me.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 8, 2023 12:31:55 GMT -5
Beyond the four layers mentioned by the OP are many more. Perhaps the next to consider would be which god to worship and why. If one comes to the conclusion like I did that the 2x2's are exclusivetists then the next question is not what christian church but which god. There are many to choose from. A lot of them have stories surrounding them about how the earth was formed. So all ought to be treated equally. The following layer ought to be a question around evidence that one or another story is true. At this stage not one has any evidence that their story is true. Cutting onions can lead to tears and so it is when one peels back ones beliefs and finds them sadly lacking in evidence. However, once one frees themselves from the mythology of gods then the words of the bible such as "The truth will set you free" have a sweet irony about them. I am sure that those that believe that jesus set them free are very happy to be enslaved to a myth.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 12:41:29 GMT -5
That's how it's become for me too over the years. Demonstrably true is important for me to decide what I can trust. Beliefs can be comforting only if you can believe them to be true. Once I saw how unlikely it was that what I grown up being taught to be true was, there was no going back. It could no longer bring me comfort because it was no longer 'demonstrably true' for me. We all hold false beliefs. But I see the main differences as: - Religion is founded on an unchanging dogma. Truth is never changing. The bible says it, I believe it, case closed. - The scientific way still holds gravity "as a theory". The theory of Gravity is subject to revision based on any new evidence. Science is self correcting. Several Christian denominations right now are splitting up because they can't agree based on their subjective beliefs. "More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination."
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 12:41:41 GMT -5
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference . Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. Have you actually ever investigated mainstream Christian denominations? Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. Add in the Orthodox and other liturgical denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, etc) and that is 75% of the world's Christians, and they all do not believe in this fantasy you are strawmaning them with. Add to that all the non-liturgical non-fundamentalist denominations (Congregationalist, Methodist, etc) and that is more than 95% of the world's Christians, who also do not believe in your strawman conjecture.
The only fools who believe in young earth creation are FUNDAMENTALISTS, and they are mostly found in the USA.
2x2s are a sub-group of Fundamentalists, hence the Original Post.
Good grief, you folks just want to puke out any brain fart you have without actually reading the purpose of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 8, 2023 12:44:56 GMT -5
What age does the Bible say the age of the universe is? And where is it in the Bible? Thank you Young Earth Creationists typically use a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the genealogies and creation accounts in the book of Genesis, to establish their belief in a young Earth. They calculate the age of the Earth by tracing the genealogies listed in the Bible, which they believe provide a chronological timeline from the creation of Adam and Eve to the present day. Based on this interpretation, they commonly assert that the Earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. One of the most well-known Young Earth Creationists who attempted to calculate the age of the Earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible was James Ussher, an Irish archbishop and scholar. In the 17th century, Ussher famously calculated the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years old. His work, "Annals of the World," published in the early 17th century, is often cited as a significant influence on the belief in a young Earth among some religious groups. However, it's important to emphasize that Ussher's calculations are not scientifically accepted today. Whereas mainstream science, which relies on extensive evidence from various fields such as geology, astronomy, and radiometric dating to estimate the Earth's age as approximately 4.5 billion years. It took the RCC a while to get over their belief that the sun and planets revolved around the earth not being true, but once they did they definitely contributed to and supported the science that supports an universe that is 13.7 billion years old. So it's the more evangelical and fundamentalist religions that hold to the young earth belief. One of the members on here pointed me towards a book that they are reading called 'The Unbearable Wholeness of Being: God, Evolution and the Power of Love' by Ilia Delio. I am finding it an informative read regarding just how much the monks and Jesuits in the RCC contributed to science over the centuries and how much their findings support evolution, and the universe being billions of years old. Also their view on evolution is quite interesting. I like Julian Huxley quote "We are nothing else than evolution become conscious of itself". I see the story of Genesis to be an attempt to explain how we evolved to a time when we became self aware and once that happened we could no longer live in 'paradise' and be blissfully ignorant. Being aware that we are aware changes everything and we could not longer just 'survive' but started to think in what we might say was philosophical, determining for ourselves right and wrong being a concept that we hadn't had before we evolved to the stage of self awareness.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 8, 2023 13:13:29 GMT -5
Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. Have you actually ever investigated mainstream Christian denominations? Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. Add in the Orthodox and other liturgical denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, etc) and that is 75% of the world's Christians, and they all do not believe in this fantasy you are strawmaning them with. Add to that all the non-liturgical non-fundamentalist denominations (Congregationalist, Methodist, etc) and that is more than 95% of the world's Christians, who also do not believe in your strawman conjecture.
The only fools who believe in young earth creation are FUNDAMENTALISTS, and they are mostly found in the USA.
2x2s are a sub-group of Fundamentalists, hence the Original Post.
Good grief, you folks just want to puke out any brain fart you have without actually reading the purpose of the thread.
For me, there is no need to investigate any religion further. The formation of this planet did not involve a god of any kind in any way shape or form. Whether it is a fundamentalist type cult or part of the catholic group of cults, they all have one central theme and that is the worship of a god.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 13:17:15 GMT -5
Have you actually ever investigated mainstream Christian denominations? Yes. I was the first and last outsider to profess in my family. Prior to that I was a member of a mainstream Christian denomination. The same is true for my wife. Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. Yes, I do. However, Are you aware that not all who self identify as Christians, also say Catholics are NOT Christians or that Mormons are NOT Christians? .. more than 95% of the world's Christians, who also do not believe in your strawman conjecture. The only fools who believe in young earth creation are FUNDAMENTALISTS, and they are mostly found in the USA. At little harsh aren't you... -0) Can you provide data showing 5% of the worlds Christians are young earth creationist? I find different numbers. The figure I used was 30%-40% in America believe in Creationism, and worldwide it's 28%. see data source below. news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspxncse.ngo/polling-creationism-and-evolution-around-world#:~:text=A%20new%20poll%20conducted%20by,Ipsos%20on%20April%2025%2C%202011.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 14:56:33 GMT -5
It took the RCC a while to get over their belief that the sun and planets revolved around the earth not being true, but once they did they definitely contributed to and supported the science that supports an universe that is 13.7 billion years old. I agree. I have to give the RCC some credit. I don't know of any other denomination that has such a complete published rational on what they believe, and why. They have had a few thousand of years looking into the bible and have produced a lot of commentary which justifies their interpretation. For examples; www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/title.shtml www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.htmlAs you say the RCC has also been willing to yield to science and discard some of their old positions, albeit slowing, when their theology is proved to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 15:03:23 GMT -5
It took the RCC a while to get over their belief that the sun and planets revolved around the earth not being true, but once they did they definitely contributed to and supported the science that supports an universe that is 13.7 billion years old. I agree. I have to give the RCC some credit. I don't know of any other denomination that has such a complete published rational on what they believe, and why. They have had a few thousand of years looking into the bible and have produced a lot of commentary which justifies their interpretation. For example; www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/title.shtmlAs you say the RCC has also been willing to yield to science and discard some of their old positions, albeit slowing, when their theology is proved to be wrong. RCC didn't yield to science, RCC funded and promoted science. There would be no 'science' if it were not for RC monks. Even in the Galileo case, he wasn't told to stop doing science (he was working at an RCC university), but he was told to stop pushing his theories as true in his classes because his evidence wasn't as strong as the evidence his competitors had. Once the evidence was on his side, then the RCC was ok with it being taught in classes. His 'punishment' for not complying was house arrest in a beautiful villa.
worth reading
|
|