What do Christians Believe?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

(...)
I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

In Western Europe peoples who had lived centuries the Christian faith are now so open minded that everything practically of Christian beliefs and practices have gone out of their minds. Now the churches are empty of worshippers but flowing with tourists. So, beware, you might end up so open minded that everything you used to harbor in your mind and heart before escapes and leave not to return ever, except the memory.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

I'd like to say that it has not been the Catholic Bible that has been adding books but rather the Protestants that seem to take them out

Please, JJM, allow us to keep this friendly and on an even keel. I respect you and your opinions very much, and I want to remain on friendly terms. This is a difficult discussion under the best of circumstances, and I really wish to insure that it does not disintegrate. That would spoil the purpose of this particular thread. The Buddhists cooperate through their differences. The Wiccans cooperate through their differences. The Atheists cooperate through their differences. And how many point to the Christians and say, "see, they can't even find points of agreement amongst themselves, in no time they are at each others' throats." This thread seems to me the perfect place to demonstrate that Christians can find points of agreement, and can get along even when they disagree.

The canon of the Bible was established by the Catholic church not long after its official recognition and organization by the Roman government under Constantine. I don't recall all of the details offhand, but there was a council (Council of Laodicea?) convened that determined what books were to be included and which were to be dismissed. This established the canon of the Bible, circa somewhere between 313-325 AD. In other words, the Catholic church had the say in what books went into and which were left out, the Protestants did not even exist until Martin Luthur some 1300 or so years later. The Arian (Aryan?) controversy stems from this period (325 +/-). Arius was deemed a heretic and run out of town on penalty of death (demonstrating the degree of political power the newborn Catholic church wielded even then) because his views and teachings were contrary to that endorsed by the new church political establishment. If the Protestants left anything out, it was the Apocrypha I mentioned after the first printings of the KJV, the rest were excluded long before.

and please don't call what Susma wrote Bull I take that very seriously.

I sincerely hope this is an attempt at humor that I don't fully understand. What Susma quoted is a Papal BULL. I did not call it "bull", it is named Bull (By the POPE).

"As for Queen of heaven" this term is used to Show that she is the most influential of the saints. (Saint= Someone in heaven.)

This is a discussion I really do not wish to engage here. If you can find the book I mentioned (available at any good Christian bookstore), and just read the chapter about the Queen of Heaven. Then look at the archeological reality on display in museums throughout the world. Then consider the comparative religion studies that concern pagan practices of the ancient world. Then we might be able to rationally discuss this subject without you believing that I am somehow attacking your faith for some perverse pleasure. If I may assure you, that is something I would never do. And it is for that reason that I will not address this issue here in this thread until you have some familiarity with the subject matter beyond the specific dogma of your religion.

I really want to stress the similarities across Christianity, otherwise we will degrade into the same dogmatic arguments that have cost the lives of millions over the centuries. If one cannot learn to tolerate others' beliefs, then one is just as likely to fly a highjacked airliner full of innocent civilians into a skyscraper, because "they are wrong, and we are right, so we will do God a favor by killing all of these heretics." It is a no win situation, if one cannot overcome hatred with love, and express forgiveness in the form of tolerance, just as JESUS taught.

Again, I respect you, and value your opinions, and appreciate where you are coming from. Please allow me the courtesy of being able to respectfully disagree. We can agree to disagree, and still remain friends.

Most sincerely and respectfully yours, juan

[JJM]

I do not feel that you where attacking my faith. You don't seem like the kind of person to do that. I quickly went on the defensive because I often get accusations about the beliefs of the Catholic Church and I feel pointing out facts is the best why to combat ignorance about my religion. (Not saying that you’re ignorant. Sorry another one of those rude sentences.) It wasn't meant harshly I was just saying things. As for the Bull comment I thought that only referred to the seal used to close letters and other Documents I didn't realize the entire statement was called Bull. Council of Laodicea 364 A.D. Just thought you’d like to know the year.

Yes I know that Protestants didn't exist until Martin Luther however to the best of my understanding many books where taken out of the Bible by Protestants after his time. Kind of similar to what is currently happening with the Song of Solomon. I could be wrong and if anyone has any evidence against it I'd like to know for me advancement in knowledge even if it proves me wrong is a step forward.

I'll try and get a copy of that book but I must admit it will be a while before I'm able to read it. There is something I'd like to ask. And sense we are searching for common Ground here I thought we could start with this. A friend of mine was trying to tell me that the Passion (which I haven't seen) will not appeal very well to Protestants because it only shows like 12 seconds of his resurrection. I read to explain that because the movie was called "the passion" It wasn't necessary to show the resurrection at all but he didn't want to hear it. SO what do you think do Protestants focus less on the Death of Christ and more on the resurrection? I'd say that in The Catholic faith it is about even.

Just thought we could Try and find common ground on what is the most important part of the Religion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Well, Brother Shih, what do you think?

In my own case, I seem to not anymore get agitated over doctrinal opposition and devotional differentiation between Catholics and Protestants. Is that a sign that I have achieved some sort of Nirvanic indifference in regard to the question whether the Catholic Church is the one true to Jesus Christ or the Protestant churches.

There is a lot of emotion involved in all the controversies. If you remove the emotion, then both sides can discuss like two judges evaluating the merits of the same beauty contest candidates.

Like also the merits of this or that hairdo, cuisine, couture? The issue of religion is very similar to the discourse of hairdo, cuisine, and couture. Important thing is that hair gets done in some pattern whatever, cuisine is about edible food, and couture deals with covering the body for comfort, warmth, modesty, and sense of beauty.

Once all Christians get to be postgraduates, then there would be no more heated discussions verging on at least ruffled temper.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM, and thank you!

Originally Posted by JJM

I do not feel that you where attacking my faith. You don't seem like the kind of person to do that. I quickly went on the defensive because I often get accusations about the beliefs of the Catholic Church

I really do understand. I see it all the time. I think it is a horrible symptom of blind passion, and it cuts both ways.

and I feel pointing out facts is the best why to combat ignorance about my religion.

Likewise.

As for the Bull comment I thought that only referred to the seal used to close letters and other Documents I didn't realize the entire statement was called Bull.

There is always the possibility I am mistaken. I understand that many of the decrees issued by the Pope to establish the Church's official position are called a Bull.

Council of Laodicea 364 A.D. Just thought you’d like to know the year.

You are correct. That was the council that established the first day of the week, Sunday, as the day of worship. The council of Nicea (I often confuse the two) was the one I meant, establishing the official canon, and "settling" the Arian controversy. 325 AD. It also established the observance of Easter to replace Passover. Sorry for my shoddy scholarship, it was late and I was sitting up with my sick dog.

Kind of similar to what is currently happening with the Song of Solomon.

I'm afraid I am am not familiar with what it is you are referring to. My Bibles all contain the Song of Solomon.

I could be wrong and if anyone has any evidence against it I'd like to know for me advancement in knowledge even if it proves me wrong is a step forward.

This is an attitude I share. The trick is in being able to present disagreement in a polite and civil manner, so there are no hurt feelings.

And sense we are searching for common Ground here I thought we could start with this. A friend of mine was trying to tell me that the Passion (which I haven't seen) will not appeal very well to Protestants because it only shows like 12 seconds of his resurrection. I read to explain that because the movie was called "the passion" It wasn't necessary to show the resurrection at all but he didn't want to hear it.

I think your friend would do well also to learn about dealing with others' sensitivities. How can one understand where another is coming from without allowing them an opportunity to express their opinions? Sealing one's mind from other possibilities is the direct road to intolerance, and the "traditions of men" that Jesus actively preached against.

SO what do you think do Protestants focus less on the Death of Christ and more on the resurrection? I'd say that in The Catholic faith it is about even.

I can speak of myself specifically, and Protestants as a whole only generally. Generally, I think Christians as a whole do not care to look on the ugly stuff. They are content to see Jesus in swaddling clothes in a manger, or triumphant after the resurrection. By and large, most in my experience do not dwell on the pain and suffering He endured to accomplish His mission. "He suffered" is sufficient, rather than realizing in depth and detail what that meant. Then there are some that focus too intensely on the suffering, disregarding the overwhelming joy of His triumph in succeeding.
Jesus led his life as an example to be followed. Then He was offered as the "once for all" sacrifice, ending the requirement for the animal sacrifice for propitiation of sin. If the Bible account is true, and external evidence will not be forthcoming, the Temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom, exposing the inner santuary to the congregation when Jesus gave up the ghost. This (symbolically) opened the door to heaven directly to the faithful individual, instead of through the priesthood and religious system. Jesus then according to 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, descended to hell to release the righteous and preach the good news that death was overcome (alluded to in the Apostle's Creed), and resurrected on the third day to proclaim to His followers that He was successful in His mission. He walked with and talked among them, teaching them further truth, for 40 days, after which he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the Father and to send the Comforter to the faithful.
This is a very simple overview. And there are those that take exception to any number of points within, such as the claim that Jesus' body was stolen, or that he was "poisoned" with some drug that rendered him "as dead". Of course, there is no way in this existence to verify that he went into the "prison of death", overcame the bonds of death, or ascended. These are matters of faith.
The entire Christian faith hinges, in my opinion, on acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus (the purpose of the movie, although I have not seen it yet), the overcoming of death and the promise of the resurrection. Without these things, the New Testament is merely another collection of morality myths, no better or worse than any of the others offered around the world.

Just thought we could Try and find common ground on what is the most important part of the Religion.

SO, that is my take on the matter. What is yours?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm afraid I am am not familiar with what it is you are referring to. My Bibles all contain the Song of Solomon.

I assumed that the Song of Solomon was in your Bible I just have heard that many Protestants don't feel that because of its content it has any place in the Bible. It's my opinion that if this feeling grows then many churches will begin printing Bibles without the Song of Solomon in it and eventually it will only be left in the Catholic Bible. To the best of my understanding this is what happened with the other books.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can speak of myself specifically, and Protestants as a whole only generally. Generally, I think Christians as a whole do not care to look on the ugly stuff. They are content to see Jesus in swaddling clothes in a manger, or triumphant after the resurrection. By and large, most in my experience do not dwell on the pain and suffering He endured to accomplish His mission. "He suffered" is sufficient, rather than realizing in depth and detail what that meant. Then there are some that focus too intensely on the suffering, disregarding the overwhelming joy of His triumph in succeeding.
Jesus led his life as an example to be followed. Then He was offered as the "once for all" sacrifice, ending the requirement for the animal sacrifice for propitiation of sin. If the Bible account is true, and external evidence will not be forthcoming, the Temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom, exposing the inner santuary to the congregation when Jesus gave up the ghost. This (symbolically) opened the door to heaven directly to the faithful individual, instead of through the priesthood and religious system. Jesus then according to 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, descended to hell to release the righteous and preach the good news that death was overcome (alluded to in the Apostle's Creed), and resurrected on the third day to proclaim to His followers that He was successful in His mission. He walked with and talked among them, teaching them further truth, for 40 days, after which he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the Father and to send the Comforter to the faithful.
This is a very simple overview. And there are those that take exception to any number of points within, such as the claim that Jesus' body was stolen, or that he was "poisoned" with some drug that rendered him "as dead". Of course, there is no way in this existence to verify that he went into the "prison of death", overcame the bonds of death, or ascended. These are matters of faith.
The entire Christian faith hinges, in my opinion, on acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus (the purpose of the movie, although I have not seen it yet), the overcoming of death and the promise of the resurrection. Without these things, the New Testament is merely another collection of morality myths, no better or worse than any of the others offered around the world.

SO, that is my take on the matter. What is yours?

Well I think you have the Gist of what I believe as for the way it happened, but I can't seem to remember the veil thing could you please explain this. However, I've never met anyone that put so much emphasis on his death that it completely overshadows his resurrection, but I could see how this could be a problem. I also agree with you in saying that because the average Christian would rather focus on Jesus’ birth and resurrection Rather than his Death. That I see as a problem. I don't think Christ’s death is focused on enough by the average Christians. I think that it is focused on a bit more in the Catholic Church (but not necessarily by its followers) which is what I think my friend was trying to get at. But the people themselves don't normally think about it. And that in my opinion causes people like Vajradhara who are not Christian (Note: in the Thoughts on the Passion thread) and I'm sure some Christians that aren't very learned about the faith to think that the Passion didn't matter very much. So while I think focusing to much on it that the resurrection is no longer important is a bad thing I think that doing the opposite can be just as bad. There needs to be some kind of balance.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Time for a respite, let's all recite the Apostles' Creed, shall we?

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ His only begotten son, conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
died, and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day He rose again
from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the
dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion
of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and
the life everlasting. Amen.

I don't know about other kinds of Christians, but I think Catholics and traditional Protestants all accept that Apostles' Creed dating I think to the fourth century.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

Originally Posted by JJM

I assumed that the Song of Solomon was in your Bible I just have heard that many Protestants don't feel that because of its content it has any place in the Bible. It's my opinion that if this feeling grows then many churches will begin printing Bibles without the Song of Solomon in it and eventually it will only be left in the Catholic Bible. To the best of my understanding this is what happened with the other books.

I believe I now understand your concerns. Of course, there are a great many (too many in my humble opinion) among Protestants that completely overlook the entire Old Testament, claiming it has been done away with. Yet, that is the very Bible Jesus quoted from.

I can't seem to remember the veil thing could you please explain this.

Sure. Mark 15:38. It may be in other Gospels, but I did not find it in Luke right away. One must consider the significance of the veil and its purpose in the Temple, which will be covered somewhere among the furnishings of the Temple during Solomon's construction (sorry again for the lazy scholarship, I'm pressed for time).

However, I've never met anyone that put so much emphasis on his death that it completely overshadows his resurrection, but I could see how this could be a problem.

I was thinking of a specific order of monks who ritually lash themselves. There seems to be, in my observation, certain orders that focus on the death of Christ to the apparent exclusion of His triumphant resurrection.

I also agree with you in saying that because the average Christian would rather focus on Jesus’ birth and resurrection Rather than his Death. That I see as a problem. I don't think Christ’s death is focused on enough by the average Christians. I think that it is focused on a bit more in the Catholic Church (but not necessarily by its followers) which is what I think my friend was trying to get at. But the people themselves don't normally think about it. And that in my opinion causes people like Vajradhara who are not Christian (Note: in the Thoughts on the Passion thread) and I'm sure some Christians that aren't very learned about the faith to think that the Passion didn't matter very much. So while I think focusing to much on it that the resurrection is no longer important is a bad thing I think that doing the opposite can be just as bad. There needs to be some kind of balance.

I agree. The story must be viewed in its entirety and depth to be fully appreciated.

Thank you for being a gracious host in discussing this matter.

[Shih Yo Chi]

Susma Rio Sep, I'm not quite sure what to make of the discussions between Catholic's and Protestants. I'm beginning to think that my concerns with the practice of Christianity today aren't being addressed by either side. This is not to imply that the concerns aren't valid or important, they just aren't in the area of discussion that I'm currently interested in.

I also want to comment on your reaction to the prayer. I didn't see it as a rejection of the gifts of God, but as speaking to the motivation of spirituality. I appreciated it as I'm really searching for my own motivation in a spiritual life. It does seem that although it is a good thing when religion motivates people to live a better life, I don't think that fear the best motivation. This does not mean I don't fear God, it's just I want to feel that I'm persuing a spiritual life for some reason other than fear.

Should we fear God? I don't believe that God makes decisions and punishes people for their actions. Actions are usually their own punishment. Possibly you are refering to admittance into heaven. I don't disbelieve in heaven, but I've decided to try to live the best life I can and let the chips fall where they may in that regard. I've had a strong negative reaction to the way I've seen some idividuals, not in this forum, use hell to scare people into being good. I seem to be coming back to this point a lot so I'll stop now.

[juantoo3]

P.S.

I don't think Christ’s death is focused on enough by the average Christians. I think that it is focused on a bit more in the Catholic Church (but not necessarily by its followers) which is what I think my friend was trying to get at. But the people themselves don't normally think about it. And that in my opinion causes people like Vajradhara who are not Christian (Note: in the Thoughts on the Passion thread) and I'm sure some Christians that aren't very learned about the faith to think that the Passion didn't matter very much.

I went back to refresh my memory. Please don't be too hard on Vajradhara. While he may be pretty thick skinned, it seems a bit harsh to put such a focus on a misunderstanding. I know I often misunderstand things, I certainly would not attempt to claim knowledge of Buddhism. What I saw in his post seemed more to me a question, not so much a statement.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding, even among Christians. I cry every time I read the account of the execution of Messiah, when I take in and absorb just what it is He took on, and why. He submitted to it, willingly, on behalf of humanity. He knew what He was getting into, and did it anyway. He took on the sins of the world, that is what the scourgings, and whips, and crown of thorns (a rather cruel joke of His executioners!), the cursing, the beating, the spitting, the humiliation, and finally to be crucified, itself a horrible and ignoble death. The pre-execution beating was so severe, it is no wonder He gave up the ghost before the other two (to answer another comment from the passion thread). We tend to lump it all together and glaze over it all with the term "suffering", but to look at what actually took place and why...of course, that strikes too close to home for too many, especially the self-righteous. It matters most to those of us who are sinners, who take the time to realize what it truly means. Those who are "saved" sometimes forget that they are still sinners, subject to sin, and subject to the faults and frailties of mankind. They are only saved by this very act of Messiah!

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I was thinking of a specific order of monks who ritually lash themselves. There seems to be, in my observation, certain orders that focus on the death of Christ to the apparent exclusion of His triumphant resurrection.

Well yes that is a little extreme. However if they feel that it brings them to better understand the suffering of Christ that you spoke of then I say let them do it. However this doesn't mean they should forget his resurrection

Originally Posted by juantoo3

P.S.
I went back to refresh my memory. Please don't be too hard on Vajradhara. While he may be pretty thick skinned, it seems a bit harsh to put such a focus on a misunderstanding. I know I often misunderstand things, I certainly would not attempt to claim knowledge of Buddhism. What I saw in his post seemed more to me a question, not so much a statement.

I was not trying to be hard on him. In fact I was just using it as an example of how the lack of focus on Christ’s death can cause those outside the faith to think of it as not important. If he is reading this I didn’t mean it in a harsh way.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Should we fear God? I don't believe that God makes decisions and punishes people for their actions. Actions are usually their own punishment. Possibly you are refering to admittance into heaven. I don't disbelieve in heaven, but I've decided to try to live the best life I can and let the chips fall where they may in that regard. I've had a strong negative reaction to the way I've seen some idividuals, not in this forum, use hell to scare people into being good. I seem to be coming back to this point a lot so I'll stop now.

May I ask which prayer you are speaking of first? Is it the apostle’s creed because where does it speak of fearing God?

Any way I don't think we should fear God so much as do things because we love God. Kind of like "Don’t ask what your God can do to you but what you can do for your God." I think that he does punish people somewhat. First let me explain that in my mind there are 3 types of punishment. 1. To teach the wrongdoer a lesson. 2. To protect the innocent. 3. for revenge. I believe 1 God does on earth. 2 God does when we die. 3 Is a sin and God never does. The one God Does on earth is only if that person will respond to the punishment kind of like a loving father always guiding and reprimanding when necessary. Except this father does really know what’s best. The one when we die in my mind is like this. God will allow everyone in heaven they just have to agree to not sin. If they refuse he sends them to hell to protect those in heaven who are living with out sin.




Finally to Susma didn't you forget the "And his kingdom shall last forever" right after "Judge the living and the dead.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by JJM

Finally to Susma didn't you forget the "And his kingdom shall last forever" right after "Judge the living and the dead.

Yes I know this is a reply to myself. Actually I thought it was this"And his kingdom will have no end" I don't know why I typed "last forever" I was in kind of a hurry. Any way that’s the Nicene Creed. To late to edit so please disregard. Thanks

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

Susma Rio Sep, I'm not quite sure what to make of the discussions between Catholic's and Protestants. I'm beginning to think that my concerns with the practice of Christianity today aren't being addressed by either side. This is not to imply that the concerns aren't valid or important, they just aren't in the area of discussion that I'm currently interested in.

I also want to comment on your reaction to the prayer. I didn't see it as a rejection of the gifts of God, but as speaking to the motivation of spirituality. I appreciated it as I'm really searching for my own motivation in a spiritual life. It does seem that although it is a good thing when religion motivates people to live a better life, I don't think that fear the best motivation. This does not mean I don't fear God, it's just I want to feel that I'm persuing a spiritual life for some reason other than fear.

Should we fear God? I don't believe that God makes decisions and punishes people for their actions. Actions are usually their own punishment. Possibly you are refering to admittance into heaven. I don't disbelieve in heaven, but I've decided to try to live the best life I can and let the chips fall where they may in that regard. I've had a strong negative reaction to the way I've seen some idividuals, not in this forum, use hell to scare people into being good. I seem to be coming back to this point a lot so I'll stop now.

Dear Brother Shih:

It is good for you to read about the controversies among Christian groups and individual Christians, and learn of the variegated wealth of doctrines and disciplines prevailing among them.

Look for a good church to attend service and to receive pastoral care and to contribute to the faith of fellow Christians. In time you will find comfort and a caring home in your Christian faith, notwithstanding all the perplexities and dissensions you witness everywhere. A lot of very good Christians have arrived at that kind of an enviable sense of assurance in their peculiar persuasion of Christianity.

If you accept the version of the Apostles' Creed reproduced below, which dates to a half century after the writing of the Gospels, I believe you have the essential minimums for the salvation promised in the Christian faith.


Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ His only son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic (universal) Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Go with God, Brother Shih.

Susma Rio Sep

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Dear Brother Shih:

It is good for you to read about the controversies among Christian groups and individual Christians, and learn of the variegated wealth of doctrines and disciplines prevailing among them.

Look for a good church to attend service and to receive pastoral care and to contribute to the faith of fellow Christians. In time you will find comfort and a caring home in your Christian faith, notwithstanding all the perplexities and dissensions you witness everywhere. A lot of very good Christians have arrived at that kind of an enviable sense of assurance in their peculiar persuasion of Christianity.

If you accept the version of the Apostles' Creed reproduced below, which dates to a half century after the writing of the Gospels, I believe you have the essential minimums for the salvation promised in the Christian faith.


Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ His only son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic (universal) Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Go with God, Brother Shih.

Susma Rio Sep

...for thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, for ever and ever...

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Perhaps you're not really a Christian. Perhaps you are simply a follower of Christ. There's a difference, you know. And I think the second one is better than the first.