A netfriend responds to a conservative evangelical’s beliefs:

At the risk of being pedantic what do you mean by Jesus was divine, there are many understanding of divinity, even within Christianity not to mention other faiths and non-faiths? In much the same way “what is Christianity”? There are many variations, some claim to be mutually exclusive, even some of the “accepted” mainline branches. Atonement is a word with many meanings and implications, and it’s “all greek to me” (or latin, or hebrew) anyway. As for physical resurrection – even Jesus seems unclear what that is – he eats and drinks but not until the Kingdom comes, is touchable but walks through walls, and flies (ascends) into the clouds. I am not trying to negate these great and historic statements of faith, but have trouble with understanding just what is meant by such short summaries of very profound beliefs. I can quiet categorically say I believe all of them (including the virgin birth, which has been a categorical statement of the Church Universal for far longer than protestants have existed, although maybe not as long as the Church Universal has existed) but I am sure I would understand each statement of faith differently than other people might. Such cliche statements may be useful discussion starters, helpful reference points, meditative chants, beginnings for theological or philisophical pondering, but as definitions are totally inadequate. One great mentor of mine stated “the creeds should always be sung”, it takes away the dogmatics and replaces the mystery and emotion. Then even “I believe …” is an unprovable statement. Maybe to emphasize the wonder and mystery we should set that to music. A closing charge to worship we should use more often is “Go into the world and preach the Gospel, and only if you really have to – use words.”