Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches

On the subject of "Atheistic Christian Churches", my opponent seems to have slightly missed the point; the following is what Pro says about the matter: ...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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...