You believe in Jesus and you like a rich racist p grabber who hates Muslims. Understandable.

Quite a beautiful thought, and not a shred of evidence to support it, nor is there a logical argument.

"If we're made of the same stuff then we care about each other" is not something you can just assert. I can assert the opposite with just as much ease and with just as much (none) evidence.

You are misunderstanding what tame_deuces is saying. He isn't making a causal claim here. That being said, his language here is sloppy and, taken literally, makes an error of composition.

1) If humans are made of stardust, humans are part of the universe.
2) Humans are made of stardust.
3) Therefore, humans are part of the universe.
4) Humans care about other humans.
5) Therefore, part of the universe cares about other humans.

This is a valid argument, with true premises (I'm assuming so with regards to 1 & 2). However, we can't validly infer from (5) that the universe taken as a whole cares about other humans. I doubt tame_deuces actually means to claim this, even if his language suggests it.

Yes, part of the universe cares about other humans. Not the universe.

I never said I liked Donald Trump, I just said that I voted for him.

But seriously folks, I voted for Mr. Trump because I thought he was preferable to Ms. Clinton. Kind of a Hobson's Choice.

Would you personally like some resources which biblically demonstrate that Jesus is God?

Here's a page I found on Google that lists and includes many Bible verses supporting the claim (some verses are included in part and some are paraphrased). It includes John 1:1-3 and John 1:14, which I think are fundamental in understanding that Jesus is God. I'm pretty sure all verses are from the NKJV.

My point isn't really to demonstrate whether or not Jesus is "God". It's to demonstrate that there are common denominations of Christianity that do not even agree on this, even among those who profess to a literal reading of the Bible.

This makes me question the point of clinging to a literal reading of the Bible. It seems that even those who do that vary wildly on exactly what it means.

And sure we can argue that one of these is right and the others wrong, but I fail to see any of them demonstrate that convincingly.

In my opinion, if a religious group can call itself "Christian" while rejecting a fundamental tenet that was and is taught by literally every Ecumenical Council and literally every Reformed Confession, then its seems to me that the term "Christian" is so broad a term as to be almost useless.

Well, you're glossing over the schisms in those councils and the fact that these groups existed long before the Ecumenical Council and they continue to exist today.

Is there a particular reason that this "belief by committee" is especially believable? If there is, I think this should be presented beyond appealing to authority. You do, after all, ascribe to being a protestant as I have understood it - which means the core of your belief is that answers are to be found by the individual and in the bible (universal priesthood) and that clergy hold no particular spiritual status beyond that of the churchgoer.

Nor do I think bringing up what "most of Christianity" believes is very appealing, the entire story of Christ in the bible being about reforming an entire religion and standing up to the theological status quo.

As for the theological component, I'm sure many of them find your beliefs to violate the first commandment. As far as I am concerned, that's a pretty solid point. I'm not saying they are right and you are wrong, but it's not like these beliefs are pulled of thin air.

In his classic book on Christian apologetics Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis grappled with the question of just what is mere Christianity. In other words, what is the absolute minimum that one must believe about Jesus in order to call oneself a "Christian" without being disingenuous. In the opinion of Lewis, the Divinity of Christ was one of those things that one must believe in order to be Christian.

What would you give as the minimum beliefs about Jesus that one must have in order to call oneself a Christian?

It's wrong to use to use the word disingenious, Christians who do not accept trinitarism are not being dishonest or lying about their beliefs.

As a personal opinion I usually hold that you have the accept the majority of the bible, especially the OT, and that the accounts of Jesus are mostly correct. I think it is reasonable to accept disagreement on the specifics of the bible, however. I also think it is reasonable that Christians could see the bible as written by divine inspiration, but not necessarily hold that it is flawless, complete or finished.

I certainly don't think you have to accept the writings of C.S. Lewis to be a Christian.

I would be lying if I said that would border on insanity, because it's not even close. Do people believe the majority of Harry Potter?

Perhaps in 2000 years they do, I don't know.

Lagtight knows very well that I do not find the bible plausible, and I know very well that he does. Said plausibility is not what we are discussing here.

Fair point. But I might contend that they have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian.

Thank you for your definition. So, is it your view that someone who doesn't know what at least half of what the Bible says cannot be a Christian? I became a Christian before I had any idea what 99% of the Bible said. (Or was I not a Christian until I understood the contents of over half of the Bible?)

While I don't believe one must completely accept Mere Christianity, I do believe that one must accept the entirety of Tales of Narnia

And accept it literally!

No, it isn't useless then, you just have to not view "Christian" as referring to a set of beliefs. It's true that many denominations or sects of Christians have an official or characteristic theology that goes along with their identification with that group. But your claim that Christians all hold to the same basic beliefs is false - or rather the result of you putting an artificial (from a sociological perspective) dividing line between orthodox and non-orthodox Christians.

For instance, most evangelicals believe that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians because they don't accept the Trinity doctrine. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are Christian. Who is right? It depends on who is right theologically. However, for those of us who believe you are all wrong, there is no way to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian on the basis of whether or not they hold the correct theology. I'm willing to say that Mormons are outside of what is considered orthodox in most historical Christian churches, but since orthodoxy is just a more common version of Christian theology rather than the correct version of Christian theology, I'm not willing to say that these non-orthodox followers of Jesus are not also Christians, when they still consider themselves so.

I think we have to differentiate between a sociological definition of Christianity and a theological argument of what Christianity should be.

Sociologically we use "Christianity" as a broad sweeping term that encompasses most of the groups that deem themselves Christian. Theologically speaking Christianity is divided into many denominations and beliefs, many of whom do not see some of the other groups as true Christians.

There is a logical fallacy often quoted in religious discussions, the "no true Scotsman". When we're speaking of sociological definitions, it is true that this fallacy is often employed ("no Christian would ever do X"), but if we're in a theological debate "No Christian would ever do X" is actually a legit argument. It's fair for a Jehovas Witness to state that "the Crusades were not Christian in nature", because he is a pacifist. But he is much more murky waters if he said "We can't blame Christianity for the crusades", because someone who posits a link between Christianity and the crusades is presumably not speaking about only pacifist Christian beliefs.

I used the term "accept", not "know intimately". But if we went down to a theological argument, then you are correct that I personally would see good biblical knowledge as integral to being a Christian. But I do of course know that many people who call themselves Christian and would be sociologically counted as Christians hardly knows the bible at all.

I think that you've made a useful distinction here.

Ok. Well, I'm just going to post John 1:1-3 & John 1:14. I think the clear and logical reading of the verses is that Jesus is God.

John 1:1-3
John 1:14
These verses are from the NIV.

You think those are clear? John 1:1 is very poetic, but uhhh...not clear at all. How can something both be with God and actually be God? What is "the Word"? I don't mean, who is being referred to, I mean, what is meant by referring to Jesus as "the Word." Is the son of God a god also, or just a divine being? Or just a great man? Is "the Word" something that predates Jesus and that kind of inhabited him, or is it a celestial title or position of some sort, or did Jesus exist in some sense before he was born?

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, the man, has lived many lives as have we . Within the organism of other names, he has developed through these lives to the moment in which the Chris Being incarnated within his body (s) at the Baptism by John. This is the development of the advanced human being, on display, to which we can all and will all progress.

The Christ Being, who had been prophesied to do so, entered into the body (s) of Jesus of Nazareth and at that time the referral is to Christ Jesus. In the ancient mysteries it would be considered a avatar to which we know give to pictures referring to us on this forum, different but the same name.

An example of the above is the manger in which the three kings of orient heights bringing gold, frankincense and myrrh top the infant Jesus of the Matthew Gospel. they had literally follow his star as they paid homage to the ancient leader of their nation, they had waited and sought him through the maps of the stars. this leader is known to some as the great spiritual leader of Persian origin, Zarathustra, incarnating as the man Jesus.

The Sons of God were known to the ancient mysteries as in the old way each Hebrew lived within their "ego" in relation to Abraham , or another way "I and Abraham are one". the new has approached and the group souls of the ancients are being displaced, within Love, to the dissolution of the "ties of blood" that of the group ego.

Each man , in his ego, goes beyond the old group identity to the beginnings of the Human Journey, the "Sons of God". The "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us", the sensory manifestation of the Son, or the Word or the Christ, of the beginnings.

Well, from reading those verses it's clear (to me at least) that Jesus, being the Word, is God (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God). Jesus being God is something that is being stated in those verses. Here's a good question and answer on gotquestions.org that explains the usage of the word Word for Jesus. Jesus is God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, so yes I think it's correct to believe He always existed. I'm guessing you're at least a little bit familiar with the concept of the Trinity, but if you'd like to learn more starting there might not be a bad idea.

Okay.
You claimed this passage was clear and direct. Now you are suggesting that understanding the Trinity, one of the most difficult doctrines of Christianity, is required to understand it.

I think the verses clearly demonstrate that Jesus is God, biblically, given that Jesus is the Word mentioned in those verses. If you want to further understand who God is, then understanding the concept of the Trinity will most definitely help since God exists as three persons. The Trinity is definitely a difficult thing to fully understand (perhaps impossible, since we are finite and trying comprehend an infinite and eternal God), but I do think those verses clearly and directly identify Jesus as God (which was essentially the claim that I was making).

Actually, if I could I would delete the part in bold. When I wrote that I'm pretty sure I was checking what I wrote in post #569 to see if it (the part in bold) made sense, I'm not sure if what I wrote in post #569 constitutes a claim though. The things I wrote in post #572 regarding the verses we're discussing do, but I don't think I was considering that post when I wrote what's in bold.

(I apologize if this post seems strange, it just irked me that I wrote that I was making a claim when I'm not even sure if I was.)