Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches
Debate Rounds (5)
As well it is stated and obviously known that most churches who are openly known for this practice are doing it in such vanity and obscenity that these type of churches i would state wolves in sheep clothing are the key culprits of why such christian orientated practice has been discouraged, stopped and argued against time and time over for stopping any such practice anywhere near what it should be going on and doing today.
These circumstances and failed ability to properly weed out the fake, the villaineous, the vanity and the obscure have produced a fearful spiritual phenomena where spirits and demons feel free to roam around on this earth, especially in a spiritual church setting where the church leadership would much quicker in nature prefer to turn to man's understanding of psychiatric treatment of medicine and eletrical or any other man-made concepts versus turning to the scriptures directly for the HOLY SPIRIT's guidance and direction of what to do for resolution of the problem.
And regarding the Holy Spirit? It is just a figment of your imagination that was set-up but no longer valid today, because today's churches can't speak of demons and spirits taking place today without acknowledging the Holy Spirit... and the requirement of healing and deliverance from anything evil in the sight of GOD.
If churches actually did believe such things you would see all Churches (without exception) practice and openly offer to do laying of Hands for healing and deliverance like this website's organization https://flames-of-fire.org... and more written testimonials like this https://flames-of-fire.org... going on world-wide without accepting the simple, its all scientific anyways, or its just circumstantial because of some situation you don't understand and similiar type psuedo christian arguements.
Churches really are nothing more than for the majority portion, Athiestic, or psuedo christians growing, creating and harboring more of the same from their leadership that is growing because it is easier to grow when churches do not have the Holy Spirit moving inside of them for healing and deliverance of spirits and demons. For everyone who doesn't acknowledge JESUS CHRIST already has a diety of power in them, and if they can control the powers that JESUS CHRIST really has to offer then they can limit their potential to be required to leave the souls they possess.
Let me begin by pointing out that Christianity is a diverse religion; numerous divisions and schisms over the years have led to the situation that we can meaningfully speak of "denominations" within Christianity. I suspect that most gentle readers will be aware of some of the major divisions... I myself was aware of most of them but for the sake of this debate have done a little research and present the results of that research here for my own edification as much as for the gentle reader:
As I understand it all of these major denominations share many basic tenets; one of these is that Jesus Christ is the only son of the living God. Since Atheism is the non-acceptance of god claims, Atheism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. I therefore contend that Pro cannot gain anything from the "or atheistic Christian churches" clause in the resolution... if the resolution is to be carried then it must rely on the first of Pro's contentions, that most denominations are pseudo-Christian.
I therefore propose that we concentrate on this idea and pretend that the resolution simply reads:
"Most Christian denominations are psuedo-Christian".
If Pro is not happy with this direction then I invite Pro to provide some evidence of any "Atheistic Christians" at all, let alone a significant number, an entire denomination or, worse, the preponderance of denominations. I'd even accept (to begin with) a theoretical explanation of how one could possibly believe that Jesus is the Son of God whilst also not believing that there is a God!
And so to the claim of psuedo-Christianity; I suspect that some Christians could be persuaded (in an uncharitable moment) to describe Christians from other denominations as "pseudo-Christian" but I question the truth or meaning of the claim. For a start, we would need to have a more narrow definition of what Christianity is than is the scholarly or even the publicly accepted definition. In order for Pro to pass this resolution, I contend that the burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate what "true Christianity" is, in such a way that it excludes the majority of people who self-identify as Christian; this is a tall order!
Pro does mention the "laying of hands for deliverance of spirits/demons" - and it seems to be the backbone of Pro's contention that any Christian who does not engage in this specific practice is not a true Christian; cards on the table: I have some sympathy with this position, being an Atheist myself, since it would seem at face value that a Christian is one who follows the teachings and example of Christ who, according to the holy bible, certainly did lay on hands for the deliverance of demons; on the other hand (and this side seems to me to hold more weight) anybody who claims to base their life on the acceptance of Christ and following His teachings ought reasonably to be called a "Christian", especially if that is how they wish to be identified. If you wanted to take the idea literally and to the extreme, as Pro seems to want to do, I might point out that Pro is probably typing their response on some sort of expensive electronic possession - if Pro was a "true Christian" then surely they would have followed Christ's teaching that one should rid oneself of all Earthly possessions!? Why would it not be as valid to call anybody in possession of, well, ANYTHING, to be (at best) a pseudo-Christian? I make the point not just for rhetorical device but because I wish to highlight the fact that Pro must provide a definition of a "true Christian", such that we can see how many self-proclaimed Christians are in fact pseudo-Christians in Pro's view. Until Pro is forthcoming with this definition then I am quite happy to accept that anybody who believes Christ to be the only Son of the only God and the Saviour of the World is most certainly a Christian.
I think that I will rest my case there, for round 1, but I will make a direct request of Pro:
Please help me understand the nature of your claim by telling me which of the following major denominations are (in your slightly-less-than-humble-opinion) either Atheistic or Pseudo-Christian:
I look forward to understanding Pro's position in more detail so that I can mount a more focussed defence!
My key argument is this... Any denomination can break form of how they produce their practice of faith and change it up.
My definition of a Christian is one who seeks after the Holy Spirit in all that they do, to include reading of the Scriptures both Old and New Testament and obeying anything the Holy Spirit states for them to do. (Whether give to the poor all their possessions, or using their money for the profit and GLORY of the HOLY SPIRIT) The HOLY SPIRIT knows what is in each person's Soul for sinning again and disobeying and turning away from GOD, not mankind.
A Christian should openly, willingly and seemingly desire to practice, learn and understand how to heal, deliver and obey the Holy Spirit in terms of communicating to others how this takes place to include seeing and performing the actions themselves.
When the disciples instructed their followers to turn their eyes upon JESUS CHRIST in their actions and instructions, these were not made-up spoofs considered great gimmicks to be heard and obeyed. These were heard and instructed teachings from JESUS CHRIST and the HOLY SPIRIT who directed them from the Old Testament and teachings from JESUS CHRIST's HOLY SPIRIT upon how and what to do for a better discernment and understanding of who JESUS CHRIST really was and how to conduct oneself as a Christian directly.
Many arguments have been made saying that they Laying of Hands for deliverance from spirits, sicknesses and illnesses have died off or stopped when JESUS CHRIST stopped roaming on the EARTH.
So the teaching of such things should stop as well or so they claim from different individuals who claim to be Christians today to include my own father it seems.
I was actually seeking for a Pastor, Bishop or religious fanatic to accept the debate for a more direct question why they claim to be a Christian faith, and how they actually provide this information to their congregation and followers outside the church.
Background and reason for bringing this question up and forward on debate.org is not some electronic question I got to respond back with or anything else... but more of a specific hunger inside my soul for others to see and understand the difference today.
For me, I was raised and brought up underneath a Southern Baptist Denomination, in which the argument I am making was never once publicly broad-casted inside the church sanctuary once with a 3,000+ member congregation to boast ever saying the words, "If you need laying of hands for deliverance or healing please come forward and we will pray for you." I never once heard them say, "There are spiritual battles taking place today, and you need to proclaim .... in the name of JESUS CHRIST as your LORD as Savior has to leave" or anything else in that manner of category. Sure, they might have off-roots and grass-roots speaking of such things, but publicly acknowledging and practicing it is taboo it feels like in today's churches.
I directly do not claim a specific religious Christian denomination, but if I had to directly dictate which denomination was closest to the ones I would practice underneath I would say probably a more charismatic or evangelical in nature faith.
I do not know nor do I claim to know what each and every denomination practices today.
But I will state for if what I am saying is false it is being hidden and kept out of the public media broadcasters (at least), that today's majority of Churches do not pray for the sick by laying on of Hands or practice deliverance of spirits and demons openly inside their church or among their congregation for those who desperately need it.
And that is my sole-key argument.
Christians should (which they majority do not) practice the laying on of the Holy Spirit to cast out spirits/demons and illnesses out of individuals as well they do not teach on how to maintain that healing, for spiritual laws taught from the Holy Spirit indicates that if someone was severely sick, ill, or wounded that the Devil has a right to come back and regain the territory he was told to leave out from. So if someone was at a church revival sitting in a wheel chair due to bad back issues, or some health reason and they were prayed for healing to be able to walk and they are able to walk that night from the healing of the Holy Spirit, the may not always be able to maintain that healing the next day as their level of faith has dropped off and do not understand the spiritual fights required to maintain that healing power JESUS CHRIST's HOLY SPIRIT provided and to maintain and fight to keep.
Because most churches do not teach on such things, and do not teach on how to thirst, crave, and desire for the Holy Spirit's nourishment when reading the Holy Scriptures seeking for spiritual food only the Scriptures can provide when seeking for spiritual nourishment in which the Holy Spirit's guidance and direction of food to take in (reading GOD's Word) and a close encounter relationship with just taking a solitary location and bringing everything before GOD daily seeking for GOD to point out what to change, fix, or disband in one's life for a closer walk with GOD directly.
If you ask me my opinion on what description most denominations are, atheistic or pseudo, I would describe most denominations that do not practice, teach and preach the above information all as pseudo churches, making them breed contempt in the name of the HOLY SPIRIT. Making them that of a Lukewarm Christian concept breeding Atheism because the congregation ignores the calls of the HOLY SPIRIT because they never were taught to accept HIM as their LORD AND SAVIOR OF ALL. As I've Heard one statement said, "If JESUS CHRIST is not LORD of all, He is not LORD at all."
Consider that for a second in what it means... How can someone be a Christian if they are not seeking the HOLY SPIRIT...
I look at it in this terminology... How does a new born infant grow and know its mother and parents? Evolutionary Instincts taught by nature these are your parents? Being fed directly by the mother and constant companionship of the father? Do some scientific research on this, now consider what do Churches teach on the Holy Spirit openly and publicly to their congregation... "We must solve this political issue of gays and lesbians so we must vote rally everyone in church and vote no on the resolution?!?!" type of preaching for mini-political social problems? Or do you hear them preaching and teaching, "The Holy Spirit according to Matthew 8 verse 10 was saying this to me.... I was in the middle of a sin when I felt convicted and was shown this...? This is how someone understands the Holy Spirit talking to you, you feel normally like this but everyone has a slightly different encounter depending on your level of faith, and walk with the Holy Spirit and how much you desire and crave HIS WORD daily."
Which do you typically and normally see preached and provided inside sermons of large enormous congregations in most congregations?
The actions spoken above in church is where my Soul is aching and crying inside. The ignorance and failure of mankind to address the HOLY SPIRIT openly and correctly is what drives individuals into atheism, Wicca, pagan, Hindu, Muslim, bhudism, and all the other faiths if they ever claimed to practice Christianity.
How many Bhudhist(?) television show references do you recall seeing growing up? I can recall at least one myself... Jackie Chan and the adventures(?) cartoon show, if that wasn't of a Bhudhist faith teaching propaganda explain how the yin and yang, powers from token coins, and some form of spirit or demon possessing people or objects wasn't religious teachings today.. Explain that one.
But Christians as a whole don't address it, they refer to be mute or silent on such issues and watch shows like ernest saves Halloween inside their Wednesday night classes for the kids to stay quiet while the service is taking place of choir practice is going on.
The majority of Christians are either spiritually asleep because SATAN has won the battle for their spiritual powers to be used against him and his dominions, or the Christians are actually wolves acting claiming a faith they don't believe in because it goes against their life-style to live.
What are my definition of Christians?
It is this:
Anyone I know or can sense from the HOLY SPIRIT leads me that I can directly go up to and say, "Can you pray for me with another Christian or two and request for deliverance from a spirit that is trying to overpower me to watch pornographic material or some other sinful desire in my life. Or someone I can go up to today and ask for prayer for my health problem on the spot and know and believe they are convicted and convinced just like I am that the HOLY SPIRIT actually heard and listened to every word being sent up before HIM."
If someone is of any other faith or practice, but sees or hears of healing from laying of hands and deliverance and requests the same action to be done for them as well respectfully and are willing to perform the request through the HOLY SPIRIT, that is a TRUE CHRISTIAN and a TRUE CHURCH.
Do you know any like this in your area?
I would beg to argue that most denominations would scoff, argue, disagree and be argumentative with the simple practice of such things from lack of obedience and discernment from the HOLY SPIRIT.
Few random individuals who do not know what they are doing might be willing, but without training open themselves to a spiritual realm of attacks they may not be ready for from Satan's domain of influence and power that they may learn the hard way, but might even turn away from JESUS CHRIST not knowing why their church members don't understand them anymore to include their denomination's leadership.
...making them that of a Lukewarm Christian concept breeding Atheism because the congregation ignores the calls of the HOLY SPIRIT because they never were taught to accept HIM as their LORD and SAVIOUR OF ALL.
It may well be (although this is deeply contentious) that many Christians are "lukewarm Christians" and do, in fact, "breed atheism"... however, even if they do, this would not make them "atheistic Christians". Likewise, if a church (by way of sincere but according-to-Pro wrong belief) bred atheism, this would not make it an "atheistic Christian church", merely (in Pro's opinion) a "pseudo-Christian church" which, by abnegation of duty, caused the spread of atheism. Therefore I ask again whether it would be acceptable to my opponent to concentrate only on the aspect of this resolution that deals with "pseudo-Christianity". I hope the gentle reader will agree with me, irrespective of Pro's position, that this is the only aspect of the resolution that could possibly carry the debate.
And so, again, I will address the concept of "pseudo-Christianity". I beg the reader remember that the resolution proposed by Pro asks us to hold that entire Christian denominations (and "most" of them, at that) are pseudo-Christian. I consider it a mistake, therefore, for Pro to now change their position in argument to "any denomination can break form of how they produce their practice of faith and change it up". It strikes me that for Pro to carry the argument, they must identify at the very least one denomination that Pro considers to be an example of a "pseudo-Christian" denomination; if not, then perhaps a church that is "pseudo-Christian"; or an individual who is "pseudo-Christian"; c'mon, Pro, throw me a bone here!
I still hold that Pro must define their idea of "true Christianity" clearly so that we, the audience, may decide whether we agree. Pro has made some valiant effort so to do and I will, therefore, summarise what I think Pro means (I am happy to be corrected; far be it from me to put words in my opponents mouth):
I understand that Pro considers the following to be essential to "true Christianity":
1. Belief in evil spirits
2. Belief in demons
3. Belief that said spirits and demons can influence our actions
4. Belief that the Holy Spirit can cure people of said afflictions of the spirit
5. Belief that said healing can be effected by the laying on of hands of a believer
I know for certain (having been brought up a staunch believer in two separate denominations - United Reformed Church and Church of England) that there are many denominations of Christians who do not hold these beliefs; there, look, I'm helping Pro out! However, I know that those good Christians within those denominations would fight tooth and claw against the claim that they were not "true Christians"; I would like to know how (and why) Pro has come to such a specific definition of a true Christian.
One cannot help but wonder what, exactly, we should understand to be a true Christian; it seems to me a relatively simple matter to, at least, identify the major differences in denominations: different denominations offer different interpretations of specific biblical accounts. Every attitude is possible, from "this verse is allegorical" through to "this verse is literally true"... and, indeed, apologetics within denominations may choose to consider one aspect of the bible more important than another (guess what? The bible contradicts itself often!).
Since so much variation in interpretation is possible (and, indeed, seen within the diversity of Christian faith), it is veritably difficult to decide what "true Christianity" is, if such a thing could ever be said to exist. Most Christians, I feel sure, would agree that understanding that Christ is the Messiah and the son of God is essential... but... even then, there is disagreement amongst Christians. Consider the Unitarians:
Between 1797 and 1913 there were no less than four Unitarian American Presidents. Unitarians do not consider Christ to be the "son of God" any more than they consider themselves to be children of God . Unitarians consider God to be one entity and, as such, have no truck with the very idea of the Holy Ghost (they consider the phrase to be another way of saying "God"); however, they do largely consider Christ to be inspired by God, a prophet, a teacher, a saviour and they may follow Christ and his teachings in every aspect of their lives... should such people seriously be considered pseudo-Christians? Perhaps so... but the Unitarians are fairly unique in their interpretation of scripture (and thus could not be considered to be the majority of denominations)!
Now, Pro is clearly a trinitarian . Trinitarians believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; all are, of course, God... and yet, each is not the other... the classic pictorial representation is thus:
One interesting thing to note about the idea of the holy trinity is that it seems to date from 100 a.d. or so - in other words, it wasn't until 60 years after the reported death of Christ (from whom the name "Christian" is derived) that this idea took root... does Pro therefore assert that in the 60 years after the death of Christ there were NO true Christians? Either way, the vast majority of Christians today believe in "God in three persons"... and I dare say that they all should be called "true Christians".
What was the classification of a "NUN" and the initial bad mouthing of the term arriving from? Was it not from a specific denominational faith to turn to a denominational practice and therefore become widely used not as an insult but as a categorical acceptance?
If Christians do not seek after the HOLY SPIRIT to know and understand all things how do they not breed contempt with the HOLY SPIRIT causing an athieistic christian to be formed in manner likewise?
"Likewise, if a church (by way of sincere but according-to-Pro wrong belief) bred atheism, this would not make it an "atheistic Christian church", merely (in Pro's opinion) a "pseudo-Christian church" which, by abnegation of duty, caused the spread of atheism.
If you are not for something, you are against something...
(Either part of the problem or part of the solution right? There are no neutral biases when it comes to observing and watching something take place. Adults grouping together to watch a fight take place in the mall, are they for the fight or against the fight? They didn't take sides... but they didn't stop the fight either to risk their own lives and health to prevent the fight from continuing or taking place.)
Do you mean to tell me that athiesm is spread by purely a lack of faith in GOD or just ignorance of GOD then? If Christian churches professed with their lips but not with their hearts, soul, and mind then for me they breed athiesm in the same manner of a fight in the mall with only observers and no security to stop the fight.
Therefore I ask again whether it would be acceptable to my opponent to concentrate only on the aspect of this resolution that deals with "pseudo-Christianity". I hope the gentle reader will agree with me, irrespective of Pro's position, that this is the only aspect of the resolution that could possibly carry the debate."
From the above responses. I will politely say, "NO."
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I have heard of denominations having key words of their doctrine of faith be worded in such a way that although one must be baptized to be saved by Christ, (like the baptists) that even methodists or presbtarian actually believe of a similiar manner if not the same actual doctrine of faith. So to say that denominations cannot change up the meaning of their words to say certain things I would question that ability.
If you do not understand, I am lumping all denominations, all churches that do not profess and openly communicate:
"1. Belief in evil spirits
2. Belief in demons
3. Belief that said spirits and demons can influence our actions
4. Belief that the Holy Spirit can cure people of said afflictions of the spirit
5. Belief that said healing can be effected by the laying on of hands of a believer"
To be that of a Psuedo or Athiestic denomination practice. I again, will not answer which denomination these are as each denomination is different and each church's direct doctrine of faith varies upon the flavor of the week of what holds the most congregation's population attendance. The words of some sermons will not entice and induce a following, then the next week sermons are changed up because the pastor found a study that if you preach on such and such later it will gather more people as well.
"However, I know that those good Christians within those denominations would fight tooth and claw against the claim that they were not "true Christians"; I would like to know how (and why) Pro has come to such a specific definition of a true Christian."
I will re-state my basic claim, if a church/group of people do not profess and teach on the HOLY SPIRIT (or JESUS CHRIST or GOD ALMIGHTY) for understanding of all things big or small then who are they turning to? If not asking upon the HOLY SPIRIT (or JESUS CHRIST or GOD ALMIGHTY) for discernment of how to do 1-5 of what I agreed with you posting as my basic faith practice then they are not true Christians and I'd ask particularly how they claim to of faith in the HOLY SPIRIT (or JESUS CHRIST or GOD ALMIGHTY).
Any church/denomination can change in a moment's notice and change up its doctrine if desired. But I would have to clarify that it is only through the HOLY SPIRIT that all things are made possible, and it may very well be that certain individuals of different denominations truly know the HOLY SPIRIT but would agree themselves that the majority of the congregation would be highly contentious and questionable if walked up to someone else that said they were a christian and was asked, "Can you pray for me I have this evil spiritual desire in my life I need removed and help battling for complete victory." What I am saying is, most congregations would produce difficulty finding people that would actually know how and be willing to pray by laying of hands according to scripture for any deliverance or healing on the spot.
If you know of any denomination that can easily find and spot these individuals any time of day, any type of problem I would say they are not "psuedo-christians, or 'athiestic-christians denominations" and are actual Christians, and Actual Christian denominations.
I am painting a broad stroke of label on many denominations, making it hard for you to pin-point each denomination pro or con in what I am saying.
Key-reasoning for this is I am asking for you to cite to me every denomination you know of that does practice this directly and WHY THEY PRACTICE IT VERSUS OTHERS WHO DO NOT primarily having you state to me why and how I am wrong because of the massive flow of direct claims from individuals and denomination teach such things.
I do not desire to directly name-call any denomination, but more as some may say "raise-awareness" that their denomination or faith's teaching may infact not be what it should be doing and needs to be elbowed (so to speak) or nudged to teach and seek in this direction.
If you are able to provide me a broad paint stroke of all the denominations that teach this, you prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong, if you are not able to provide me with all the names of denominations you are admitting to me I am correct.
I do not desire to be correct, for my own upbringing was through a southern baptist denomination in the united states that never directly spoke of such things my entire 18 years that I can remember openly inside their pulpit speaking of laying of hands or direct deliverance from spirits or demons openly and publicly.
Sure there may be off-branch roots and sections of the congregation that might know someone who has formed such small groups that practice this, but openly and publicly announced is taboo, forbidden, or against the denomination's open acceptance of speaking to everyone.
Tell me of your denominations that you know which do openly practice and speak of such things that have not been labeled as vanity by most denominations, and you will only find small off-shoot ministries that are not publicly known or openly accepted by all the denominations for the same teachings they proclaim compared to the mainstream denominational practices that I am calling all of them out in JESUS CHRIST'S CONVICTION on my soul.
Am I clear enough?
You are encouraged, and welcomed to leave additional remarks in the comments portion if you want to provide more questions or understanding of where I am coming from.
Bottom-line, unless you can clearly provide an overwhelming massive majority of churches that do practice 1-5 openly and publicly and are not out-numbered by attendance of population with different denominational faiths I will accept I am wrong and say you are right.
Is this bone big enough for you to chew on?
When somebody is offering a statement, a proof, a resolution, an opinion that they would like heard, a belief or any other positive assertion, they own an inalienable burden of proof; when challenged to back up their assertion, if they rely on "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" then they have committed a fallacy in informal logic known as an "argument from ignorance" .
Pro says the following: "If you are able to provide me a broad paint stroke of all the denominations that teach this, you prove me wrong and I will admit I am wrong, if you are not able to provide me with all the names of denominations you are admitting to me I am correct."
This is a very clear example of an Argument from Ignorance.
Furthermore, it reveals a far worse mistake: there is an assumption built into that very paragraph; apparently, we are meant to take it as given that if a denomination does not teach the five points that I helped Pro clarify then they are clearly pseudo-Christians.
Pro has the burden to show two things: firstly, Pro must demonstrate (not just assert) that most denominations do not teach these five points. Actually, that really is the second part of the argument that Pro needs to make. Can anybody guess the first part? Yes, of course, Pro needs to demonstrate that failure to comply with teaching the Way of The Five Points makes somebody a pseudo-Christian. We are going to need something more substantive than an opinion.
Pro says, rather condescendingly:
"If you do not understand, I am lumping all denominations, all churches that do not profess and openly communicate:
To be that of a Psuedo or Athiestic denomination practice."
Oh, I do understand, Pro! What you seem to fail to realise is that whilst you are free to do all the lumping you like, you won't win any arguments by bald assertions. What is required of you is to explain why "true Christianity" implies teaching The Way of The Five Points. I contend that this is utter nonsense, as evidenced by a number (this is not a concession of a majority) of Christians who do not literally believe in demons.
By the by, you may not be aware of it but the current Pope is pushing towards a more literal belief in Satan and demons... indeed, he even went so far as to perform a laying-on-of-hands upon a man in a wheelchair who claimed to be possessed by demons .
So I guess, Pro, that you'll have to accept that the largest denomination in the World is "truly Christian", since it is an article of faith in that religious fiction (sorry, I mean "faction", of course) that what the Pope says is divinely inspired and absolute truth.
Let us imagine for a moment that the majority of Christians do not believe in demons; should this mean that Pro wins the debate? Certainly not! Indeed, I would say that it's pretty good evidence that Christianity does not imply belief in demons. What it does not show is that the minority who do believe are justified in branding all the others "pseudo-Christian".
Admittedly you would have to believe in demons if you believed the bible literally; but most Christians do not believe in, for instance, Adam and Eve... indeed, I find it quite remarkable that anybody can claim to believe the bible literally when it contradicts itself with reckless abandon; for instance: did God create Adam before or after he created the animals? Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 on this point... thus one who wishes to believe the bible literally faces a rather awkward situation; we're on the second chapter and already the two chapters that we have are at odds with each other!
Pro leaves us with the following:
"Bottom-line, unless you can clearly provide an overwhelming massive majority of churches that do practice 1-5 openly and publicly and are not out-numbered by attendance of population with different denominational faiths I will accept I am wrong and say you are right.
Is this bone big enough for you to chew on?"
The bottom line is actually that it is not up to me to demonstrate that the majority of churches do practice The Way of the Five Points (although I have perhaps shown that Catholicism does and it's the biggest denomination in the World)... it's up to Pro to explain why one can only be called a "true Christian" if one believes in the laying on of hands. Are there any other requirements of a "true Christian"? Must one believe in Christ at all, or could one just follow The Way of the Five Points and still be a "true Christian"? Who has given you the right to define a "true Christian", more to the point? Care to chew on that?
I want to see that the words I speak are lies, and false-hoods for being proven wrong gives me hope and faith that this world isn't as upside-down as I personally think it is.
I did some research on the catholic faith practice on exorcism and even then it appeared there was a massive taboo subject feeling on the majority of that denomination per the swaying of the current pope himself. (It almost got me excitedly happy, then I noticed something) They mentioned the use of our lady, and angels.1
I have to ask and inquire, when did Jesus's mother ever cast a spirit or demon out I am quite confused on this if the catholics claim this is scriptural doctrine teaching, or just something that sets them apart. Same situation for the angels casting out and saints casting out.
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
This indicates to me that it takes more than the simple belief and even practice to be saved even if individuals can cast out spirits/demons and prophesy would you agree on this biblically speaking?
I am one who believes the bible is without error or flaw and it is up to the discernment of the Holy Spirit to provide answers and clarity of what one does not understand physically or spiritually.
So you may see my response as a dodging bullet response to your question, of "Who is a true christian or a true believer of JESUS CHRIST?"
The response is simple, "One who does the will of Jesus Christ's Father who is in heaven."
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
One needs to become servants to GOD.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
So to be found to be a Christian, one must be crucified with Christ so that oneself might not live but Christ to live instead. And it would be through the faith of the Son of GOD and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Scriptures speaks of the fruits of the spirit. Scriptures speak of laying of hands, scripture speaks of living by grace.
If the scripture is flawed, then everything the scripture speaks of is invalid and pointless and should turn our eyes to be worshipping a family heirloom rock to the same effect.
Unless I am providing vanity, I'm fairly certain everything I just provided has given the answer to your question of what is a true Christian, unless the clarity is confusion still with the 1,2,3,4,5.
If you see it discussed in scriptures with the apostles/disciples of Christ, a follower of JESUS CHRIST can and should be able to do the same unless the Holy Spirit living inside them tells distinctly not to for a specific reason.
I am not concerned with the majority of those who would call themselves Christians, for I would indirectly classify the majority to be that of the key topic of this debate either wolves in sheep clothing claiming to be that of what they are not, or simply too spiritually asleep to understand what the Holy Spirit has been trying to get across their souls the entire time they've asked JESUS CHRIST into their soul who is in direct reproach of all the evil spirits and demons surfacing in retaliation if the request was sincere.
I believe in JESUS CHRIST with wreckless abandonment of all else to take place.
Your comment of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 actually shows your lack of Faith and ability of GOD almighty. This is why...
If God is able to turn dry bones into life:
Eze 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
Eze 37:2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.
Eze 37:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
Eze 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
Eze 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
Eze 37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze 37:7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
Eze 37:8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
Eze 37:9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
Eze 37:10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
Why limit GOD being able to form creatures out of the ground If even this has been spoken, I ask that your eyes may be opened.
By the way, you think you did provide but actually you didn't you only partially think you did if you read more articles and asked for clarification about other idolatries being worshipped in the same house they claim to be for JESUS CHRIST.
If the 1,2,3,4,5 are not demonstrated as the scriptures point each and every one out one by one... (Do you need me to copy and paste each reference being used or compared in scripture? I can if you would need clarification of each.)
My key and sole arguement is if the words I speak are not commonly seen today in all of or at least the majority of churches/denominations, with an emphasis on learning from the HOLY SPIRIT discernment for only the HOLY SPIRIT can provide clarification of such things as I've mentioned what I believe to be throughout the debate they are wolves in sheep clothing, or athiestic psuedo christian denominations breeding Athiesm for lack of belief in practicing the teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT's abilities, functions, and understandings.
Yes, the pope might be close.... but the practice of idolatry for worshipping (praying to) saints, bishops, or any other name (mother mary) is not biblical and so it is condemned and led by a false-spirit of Jesus Christ who is not the same I believe.
Am I clearly understood?
You can use the comment portion for discussion if you want.
Well, now... obviously I don't believe that the bible is divinely inspired since I don't believe in the divine! Furthermore, I don't believe in an afterlife... it strikes me as wishful thinking in the extreme to believe that a mind can exist without a brain (or other physical ground). The bible makes very little clear but it does make it plain that salvation is more complex than being capable of casting out spirits and prophesying. Lets take a look in a little more detail at what different Christian denominations make of what the route to salvation is:
Calvinism holds that God Himself chooses (indeed, has chosen) who to save... salvation is, therefore, by the grace of God alone; there is nothing that you can do to affect the ultimate outcome; I don't hold any truck with arguments about "free will" but this seems to me to most terribly unfair and fatalistic! Furthermore, it does not seem to me possible that God is all-loving and chooses some people to suffer in eternity because they didn't believe a fairy story (especially if the only reason that some other people do believe it is because He chooses to inspire that faith in them). You can read more about Calvinism in my first link . You'll notice that the page makes much use of biblical quotations to justify Calvinist interpretation; I'll just cite one here for brevity:
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved.  (my emphasis) from 2 Ephesians.
Now, the Roman Catholic church tends to agree with Calvanism on this point of soteriology ... and we can see from Paul's second letter to the Phillipians that there is good reason to think that even if faith and works save us, our faith and our works are actually God's work in us:
God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. Phillipians 2:13 
This, to an atheist such as myself, seems to utterly rob any human of any praiseworthiness when they do good; what a disgusting idea! And what about the inverse? Is God at work in a murderer or a rapist? Oh no, of course, that's demons and evil spirits; thank goodness that the holy spirit is around to drive out these evil spirits. Christianity entails that we are not ultimately responsible for ourselves and act only according to holy or evil spirits moving within us... why, then, one cannot help wondering, does God not intervene except through the ceremonial laying on of hands? Does the laying on of hands focus God's attention to an otherwise happily uninterrupted demonic possession? I mean, he is meant to be all-knowing and all-powerful... why doesn't he limit the powers of these evil spirits once and for all? Still, I digress.
So, Calvanism and Roman Catholocism hold that one is only ever saved by God and only by His will... there is nothing that you or I could do to change that fact, apparently. Doesn't sound like the basis of a sensible moral system if you ask me!
BUT, of course, it's more complicated than that... what faith or works could get you saved, even if all of your goodness is God's doing?
Well, here we come across the major split between Catholicism and Protestantism - the Roman Catholic church holds that Faith and Works are the important keys to "justification", salvation and redemption. All protestant faiths hold, in direct contradistinction, that Works are worthless and salvation can be earned by faith alone. "Faith alone" translates into Latin as "Sole Fide" and this is the name given to the position that Faith in Jesus is all that is needed for redemption from sins . Martin Luther said that this was the most important aspect of Protestantism (and he helped father it).
So... there is fundamental disagreement about the route to salvation... and about who will be saved... and about whether you can have any influence over your final destination or not; all of these disparate and contradictory positions are held by faiths who all claim a basis in biblical scripture. What gives? My take: the bible is simply confusing and self-contradictory... hardly the work of an almighty super-deity who wants to give us a clear message that we can understand and have faith in!
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here and ask: how much of a real Christian is Pro if they have not got a clear belief about soteriology? How much of a real Christian is Pro if they are not deeply intimate with the bible *? Just saying, because if I believed that the bible was the only earthly example of the only god's message to humanity I would read, re-read, study and know my bible (yes, I was a Christian for half of my life and yes, I have read the bible cover-to-cover more than once - ironically, reading the bible was what converted me to atheism). Anyhow... I'm going to come out and just say this straight: Pro, how DARE you accuse anybody of not being a real Christian because they refuse to fear invisible demons and share their germs by touching you inappropriately when you don't know your bible inside out and have no discernible soteriological position? On what authority can you possibly be defining true Christianity?
* - I know that I said that I wouldn't accuse somebody of not being a real Christian... but I am happy to call somebody who calls other Christians pseudo-Christians themselves a pseudo-Christian if they merit it because, well, it just seems fair. Poetic justice; I know how I would have felt about being called a pseudo-Christian when I was a Christian.
P.S. I know many, many Christians who have not read the bible through; is their faith hypocritical? It may be that they are telling the World that they are more faithful than, in fact, they are: if you really believed that the bible was the word of the one true god, surely you would study it inside out, through and through, again and again. You'd probably end up, like me, an atheist, though... because it's quite hard to swallow a god who claims to be moral and advocates slavery.
Why did Mankind create denominations after the departure of JESUS CHRIST into heaven?
Man had variance to the point of utter contempt with each other over what Scripture specifically spoke against doing. Because how many times did the apostles write against going against the scriptures and to not bicker or fight?
If all the Churches/Denominations/Religious named organizations that claim JESUS CHRIST as their savior and leader do you think one would proclaim a disagreement with their teaching if they all listened to the WORD of the HOLY SPIRIT?
Do you not truly believe and understand it would be led, instructed, and guided by the HOLY SPIRIT on what to do, and who to communicate with and that the HOLY SPIRIT would move the barriers and boundaries that mankind has set-up for power, control, position, and categorization in today's denominational teachings?
There are those who claim to be, and those who openly admit they are not but desire to potentially know more (you know put on that apprentice hat willingly) to understand what someone teaches and believes. Even once one understands what the bible teaches and makes you should believe, if you are instructed by the will-power of mankind and the influence he/it brings everything in the Holy Scriptures will appear corrupted, misled, misguided, false, and etc... For mankind does not receive the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT without truly knowing and understanding what it means to ask and to receive.
Someone could ask right now from reading this, for the Holy Spirit to enter their heart and to lead their lives for them to make them repent and etc... But just asking, and meaning the words are really a life-style change. Not many actually are willing to change their hearts, not just their style of living.
I am not one who claims to fully know the will of GOD, nor am I one to claim I understand GOD fully, for scripture speaks that we will never fully understand HIM in multiple ways of incomprehensible love, knowledge and understanding of all things.
If you are next to a follower of Jesus Christ others may feel it when the Holy Spirit takes them over. Like a sensation of unspeakable power just suddenly leading to an unexplained action taking place from prayers. Understanding of something after never once hearing it before seeking an answer.
If the Holy Spirit ever was inside of you, as a true Christian would have had experienced, and understood it did you feel a desire or a craving for the Holy Spirit to be fed with the Word of GOD, and for you to repent, change, and fix your heart?
Every individual I have ever spoken who said that they don't believe in GOD, GOD has by HIS will and HIS grace allowed me to be explained by them personally the reasons and the situations or just begin to fathom reasons for the sincere hatred of GOD and Jesus Christ. It doesn't take long to begin to see pain, hurt, anger and remorse from something that took place or a complete specific scenario drawn out.
I am the individual who when I was younger could be listening to specific types of non-christian music, read someone else's post of a blog from xanga (years years ago), message them, ask them about specific items and they'd be able to specifically identify with the type of songs I expected them to have been listening to while they were writing how they felt.
You might say, "I analyze personalities and behaviors" and it very well could be true. But in terms of a Christian, I analyze that with my Soul, spirit, and desires to understand.
I acknowledge denominations will always bicker, fight, agree and then disagree with key terminologies they preach (do you acknowledge this?).
You seem to base being a Christian upon knowing the scriptures front to back cover to cover. No, I would disagree I would just believe those individuals usually are looking for something that they think with their human hearts and human desires they can understand without the inspiration, knowledge and understanding from the HOLY SPIRIT that the scriptures even speaks about, but those who do not understand (because they were taught by wolves in sheep clothing) will fail to properly comprehend the words the HOLY SPIRIT has to speak to you because of your failure to submit to the point JESUS CHRIST / GOD / HOLY SPIRIT wants and needs you to submit to before your eyes can truly be opened by HIM.
My eyes have slightly been opened by GOD / HOLY SPIRIT / JESUS CHRIST and from the slight of opening, my heart has been filled with anguish, pain, remorse, saddness, bitterness, and spiritual anger at the denominations and churches.
That is the reasoning for this debate, this post, and this conversation.
Because of your own hatred, anger, pity, mankind confusion and lack of HOLY SPIRIT insight you haven't fully repented and openly confessed willingly and openly before JESUS CHRIST of all things and given to HIM ALL THINGS that are part of you either physically and or spiritually.
Once you do such things, perhaps truly you will see the words I am speaking as the truth and share in my remorse and pain.
Because as I speak this, Christians are not being spiritually active in prayers, not being spiritually active in speaking in tongues, not being spiritually active in laying and praying for laying of hands.
Because as I speak this, Satanists are teaching others how to receive the power of Satan and his dominions.
Because as I speak this, Wiccans are teaching others how to practice and perform spells, rituals, and spiritual evil.
Because as I speak this, Hindus are teaching others how to practice false teachings of enlightenment, how to be one with the world (which is full of hate), how to be a monk and have spiritual dieties enter your bodies.
Because as I speak this, Celtics are teaching others ancient dieties names and learning how to feel the dieties powers to show their faith has some truth behind it.
But Christians... no, this is taboo, these are things we definitely do not speak, teach and communicate to others because of two reasons:
1. Principalities of Heaven
2. Parable of the Judge and the Widow
Human beings in this time and age refuse to study, comprehend and seek to understand what these two situations have in common when it comes time to listening to GOD for any answer they seek.
My heart cries out, can you not see this for those who truly believe in JESUS CHRIST as your LORD and SAVIOR WHO IS, WHO WAS, AND WHO IS TO BE?
AndyHood forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.