Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches

I'm sorry to have to start with a point of logic but I feel that it's necessary: 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" [1]. 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: 1,2,3,4,5 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 [2][3]. 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? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3]