Do you Believe in Witches Wizards and Deamons?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**frgsinwntr**

Found this, thought it was worth a watch. All depends on How serious you take your literature.

But seriously... What are your thoughts about his argument?

**Orkeosaurus**

Just in case you haven't seen this one:

**dogma**

What amuses me is that people still think there's a difference between design, and chance.

**Lord-Loss**

There are no Demons in Harry Potter!

But thats interesting.

**frgsinwntr**

Lord-Loss wrote:There are no Demons in Harry Potter!

But thats interesting.

Depends on your definition, voldamort does possess someone early on....

**dogma**

Just watched the first video. The first premise is wrong. Christianity is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

Fail. As usual.

**Lord-Loss**

frgsinwntr wrote:
Lord-Loss wrote:There are no Demons in Harry Potter!

But thats interesting.

Depends on your definition, voldamort does possess someone early on....

Cause he doesnt have a body and he kept alive cause of the Horcuxes.

But Good Old Voldemort is defintely human, even if his soul is like super evil.

**frgsinwntr**

dogma wrote:Just watched the first video. The first premise is wrong. Christianity is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

Fail. As usual.

for the first time in a long time... GG was the only other one to do this to me... but I am surprised by this answer...

please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?

**GoFenris**

Regarding the OP. This video is silly. It was not made for Christians to watch or to take seriously. It is made for 'anti-Christians' (whether atheist or otherwise) to 'pile-on'. Sadly, I think it is about as useful at disproving Christianity as the silly Peanut Butter film is at disproving evolution. Both films expose how obtuse each 'group' can be. And yes I used that word for its specific meaning.

With that said it is his presentation that is flawed. I believe his argument is valid (unlike the Peanut Butter one) if over-simplified.

**dogma**

frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?

No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.

**frgsinwntr**

I'm going disagree with you here.

I can differentiate between the two.

You are simply saying something that no one else I have run into has said. Which made me stop and think for a minute.

I wasn't sure what you were saying.

But thanks for the flame bait attempts

**dogma**

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going disagree with you here.

I can differentiate between the two.

You are simply saying something that no one else I have run into has said. Which made me stop and think for a minute.

I wasn't sure what you were saying.

But thanks for the flame bait attempts

If you were capable of differentiating between the two, on an emotional level (hence the 'emotionally'), you would have come to the same conclusion of your own accord. At this point you are simply proving capable of following instructions.

**FITZZ**

dogma wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?

No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.

As I recall from my youth ( my family is Chatholic,and I spent many a sunday in church and spoken to a few priest),belife that jesus is the son of god is one of the fundemental foundations of christianity.

**dogma**

Its one of the fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

**GoFenris**

dogma wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?

No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.

Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh. Mormons (now I could be mistaken as I am not Mormon and haven't studied this stuff in a while) believe Jesus is the son of God but not God himself.

**frgsinwntr**

Edit, Thanks go Fenris you beat me to it.

Dogma you're arguement needs evidence. What group are you talking about in christian sects?

**FITZZ**

dogma wrote:Its one of the fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
Also,IIRC,my Babtist and Episcopailian friends (as youngsters),were taught the same thing.
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.

**dogma**

GoFenris wrote:
Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh.

That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
Dogma you're arguement needs evidence. What group are you talking about in christian sects?

In the US you have United Church of Christ, United Disciples of Christ, some of the more liberal Catholics, Quakers, the list goes on.

**frgsinwntr**

FITZZ wrote:
dogma wrote:Its one of the fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
Also,IIRC,my Babtist and Episcopailian friends (as youngsters),were taught the same thing.
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.

Apparently I am not the only one who can't see through emotion? : )

But seriously Dogma, It is common Belief that christians have to believe that Jesus was the son of God lol Try to take a moment to educate as opposed to telling us "EPIC FAIL"

**dogma**

FITZZ wrote:
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?

It is. However, his Populance does not define Christian belief.

FITZZ wrote:
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.

You can claim that the term 'son' is not literal. Jesus being the 'son' of God in the same sense that I am a 'son' of philosophy. You can also claim that theological suzerainty is not granted by genetic association, but the right of works.

Or you can just straight up say that Jesus need only be the most significant, not uniquely so.

**GoFenris**

dogma wrote:
GoFenris wrote:
Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh.

That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).

Then I am mistaken. My apologies, I am not a theologian and have made assumptions. Your comment further supports my original statement regarding the video.

**dogma**

frgsinwntr wrote:
Apparently I am not the only one who can't see through emotion? : )

Noone can see through emotion, it just so happens that your emotions cloud your judgment of Xianity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoFenris wrote:
Then I am mistaken. My apologies, I am not a theologian and have made assumptions. Your comment further supports my original statement regarding the video.

I liked your comment. It what I would have said if drink had not pushed me into hyper-logic mode.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
But seriously Dogma, It is common Belief that christians have to believe that Jesus was the son of God lol Try to take a moment to educate as opposed to telling us "EPIC FAIL"

Common belief. Cute. There is no such thing. When you say 'common belief' you are simply referencing your own prejudice.

**Wrexasaur**

Emotion runs deep... how can you see out of that thing?

**FITZZ**

dogma wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?

It is. However, his Populance does not define Christian belief.

FITZZ wrote:
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.

You can claim that the term 'son' is not literal. Jesus being the 'son' of God in the same sense that I am a 'son' of philosophy. You can also claim that theological suzerainty is not granted by genetic association, but the right of works.

Or you can just straight up say that Jesus need only be the most significant, not uniquely so.

Well,again I must admit to being non-practicing,and thus,perhaps misinformed and/or misunderstanding.
However,growing up we were tought that jesus was the son of god and was born of man to teach us and to eventualy die for our sins,theses were always the tenents of christianity as I understood them.
Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?

**JEB_Stuart**

dogma wrote:That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).

Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.

dogma wrote:In the US you have United Church of Christ,

Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html

dogma wrote:United Disciples of Christ,

As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm

dogma wrote:some of the more liberal Catholics,

Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...

dogma wrote:Quakers, the list goes on.

Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.

**Orkeosaurus**

FITZZ wrote:Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?

Well, if he is a prophet, his "good ideas" are those of God.

I mean, is Islam secular on account of not believing Muhammad to be the son of God?

**FITZZ**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
FITZZ wrote:Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?
Well, if he is a prophet, his "good ideas" are those of God.

I mean, is Islam secular on account of not believing Muhammad to be the son of God?

Well,no I don't belive so,however,to the best of my understanding,it isn't a basic tenet of Islam to belive Muhammad is the son of god.

**JEB_Stuart**

FITZZ wrote:Well,no I don't believe so, however, to the best of my understanding,it isn't a basic tenet of Islam to believe Muhammad is the son of god.

It isn't a tenet at all...

**frgsinwntr**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
dogma wrote:That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).
Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.

dogma wrote:In the US you have United Church of Christ,
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html

dogma wrote:United Disciples of Christ,
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm

dogma wrote:some of the more liberal Catholics,
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...

dogma wrote:Quakers, the list goes on.
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.

Wow thanks for the research Jeb

**dogma**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.

A standard component of Eastern Orthodoxy is the untenable nature of God's existence. The rest follows organically.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html

Read beyond the initial statement.

Also, once you acknowledge God as the Father of all, you can cancel the significance of God as the Father of Jesus.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm

Never read the UDC statement of faith. Was going on my conversations with their Head Disciple.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...

But are Christians. Given the subversive tendencies within the faith, they still count. Also, I never brought up the notion of sects. That was Frigs. Again, emotionally incapable of rational thought on the matter.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.

Obviously, but the point of the initial comment was to elucidate the difficult inherent in classifying Christianity as a faith which requires that one belief in the genetic relationship between Jesus and God. I don't need to prove that Quakes lack that belief in homogeneity, only that some Quakers lack that belief.

JEB_Stuart wrote:It isn't a tenet at all...

Nope. Its actually blasphemy.