Well, what can I say? Except you're the one who said that one cannot be a Christian without believing that Christ existed, no matter what else that person believes. You're the one that said that such a person has less faith. By saying these things you put the existential aspects of your religion above the rest.

Because everyone who believes in Christ's message of love and hope, but can't wrap their head around the idea of a dead man walking, don't deserve the wonderous Christian mantle. And that person's faith is much less significant than the sychophants who suck at the church's preverbial teats and cry, "Look at the wonderful things that Mother Church has done for us!" (but God forbid you look at the any of the truly dispicable things she has done).

Actually one could make the argument (from a school of thought that is quite rationally backed by scripture,) that only because the supposed converted continue to sin is Christ's sacrifice made meaningless. [...]

One who believes in christs ressurection but not in what he says is not a christian. and vice versa. That is my view. Stop being so bigoted.

From JC's point of view, maybe. But if I remember correctly, the sacrifice was made to forgive both past AND future sins, and without future sins there's no need for JC any more, hence the need for an original sin.

Well that's a great way to look at it. "Thanks Jesus for saving me, but I'm there now so I don't need you anymore. So just piss off already!"

But if I remember correctly, the sacrifice was made to forgive both past AND future sins [relative to the crucifixion moment], and without future sins there's no need for JC any more, hence the need for an original sin.

Well your view is better clarified here than before. And not to play mocking bird, but the way you presented your view previously also seemed bigoted.

Only because you decided it was. I see it as an attack upon my faith to take its name to mean somthing that is practically it's opposite.

So if at one point humanity decides to stop "sinning" then JC's crucifixion becomes useless. So even if we all live like saints there's still the inherited sin explicitly formulated to prevent this from happening.

Actually I'm not entirely certain if this concept of being cleansed of future sins is biblical. Certainly it isn't a commonly held belief within many churches. If it was then they wouldn't bother with confession, or, in the more protestant sense of things, they wouldn't bother to pray each day and ask for forgiveness for any sin that they committed recently. That all seems rather pointless if they believe that Christ died for their future sins, past the point in time of their conversion to Christianity.

I'm not a Bible expert either but I oftenly hear people saying "JC sacrificed himself so our (present day) sins can be forgiven" and that one has to "embrace JC as one's saviour" in order to have this blanket of forgiveness cover one's sins. This "embracing" includes confession, praying, and whatever other crazy ass ritual the Church made up. Am I wrong ?

I didn't decide how you were going to present your view. If you're going to present things in such a way that others naturally misinterpret your meaning, don't whine about "an attack upon my faith" when someone questions what you wrote.

No you decided that my view was so because it wasn't in line with your views.

My my gentlmen. Let's come to order. This is a discussion forum so let's not attack each other.

Let me first say that this is obviously a passionate subject for the both of you so let's step back from our own opinions for just a moment and take a few deep breathes.

Ok, let's continue. Semantics is a constant issue in philosophy because words are and ineffective way to communicate. Let's not fight over this and, instead, discuss as if we were open minded gentlemen with no obligation to our individual ideals. In other words, it's the internet, arguing is just silly. Discussion is the best we can hope for.

Let me see if I have a grasp on the situation:

Av: You are saying that your perception of Christianity is one who believes in JC as well as his teachings, his position as God's son and his death/ressurection.

Sol: I am not quite clear on your stance at this point. Please clarify.

to Av: I would typically agree with your stance of Christianity as that seems to be the foundation. However, there is always room for growth and we should stay open minded to that growth and change, regardless of our views of something. We cannot admit that we are right lest we fall into the trap of convincing ourselves that others are wrong. We must try, hard as it may be, to accept any view so long as it is presented with enough relevant data to support a logical argument for any length of time. That is the essence of philosophy. We are here to discover, not to teach. We are not Sophists.

Just trying to keep you guys out of trouble with the mods.

It seems to me that there are more people who simple like the title of Christian than those who actually understand it. I spent a great deal of time researching many religions and undersatanding them from a historical, emperical, and theological stand point. This is why I claim no religion. I am simply not qualified to have a strong opinion towards one or another. They are all beautiful forms of written text which seem to have their own way of expressing very similar ideas. To me, if one wishes to choose a religion, it is his responsibility to understand the full breadth of their dedication and what they are dedicating themselves to. In my view, this means knowing there own as well as other religious ideas. A study of religion as a whole. I only say this because, as a christian would believe, we are gambling with our very eternal soul in this game. I would want to make a well educated choice.

I have no specific problem with any one religion but I definitely have more exposure to certain kinds. This has helped form my view. I rarely see christians in my region truly behave like christians. They behave more like a social club with exclusivity and a fraternity mentality. I would truly like to see a change in that ideas through education.

humanist christians are better known as the scoiety for comfortable looking potbellied american proffessers who sit in armchairs and write long winded pretentious books.

As for what you have 'shown' you can say alot about it but to claim it is spiritually irrelavent is farcical. Anyone who disbelieves in Christ as a historical figure has a different spritual outlook than one who does, which I should have thought obvious. As for 'christians' who 'sought of believe in Jesus' most certainly they have less faith if they are not willing to believe in Christs existance as a physical being, which is fundamental to the nature of God.

this misses the point. If you deny the incarnation and the ressurection, how can you theologically justify redemption? Redemption is the greatest as best gift of the christian faith and it is grounded theologically in the ultimate miracle of the ressurectin- which is of course reliant on christs incarnation. Additionally a belief in the trinity is incompatible with any kind of denial of Jesus's existance as a human.

Only because you decided it was. I see it as an attack upon my faith to take its name to mean somthing that is practically it's opposite.

I see it as an attack upon my faith to take its name to mean somthing that is practically it's opposite.

Here lies the root of your problem. Varying viewpoints are seen as an "attack" upon "your" (possessive) faith. So you are claiming some type of ownership of what is known as the "Christian" faith, and you will not tolerate opposing viewpoints, because you already know what it means to be "Christian", and if someone challenges that definition, you see it as an attack and go into defense mode.

A discussion cannot be had when someone thinks that something of his (your faith) is under attack. A somewhat-civilized argument, maybe. Really though, this statement just shows that you are intolerant!

And saying that you are intolerant is not an attack against you, but is merely a conclusion that we can draw from your inability to accept that "your" Christian faith could mean anything besides what you already think it means. We say that someone is intolerant if he goes into defensive/"i have been attacked" mode when another person suggests that he could be wrong. That is, you shut off the ability to reason and discuss.

- You might be discussing "your" (possessive) personal faith in this thread; and it is fine to have this faith, and if you want to defend it, fine. But obviously no one can have a reasonable discussion with you about "your" faith, because we don't understand your own personal belief structure.

- You could be discussing the all-encompassing "Christian" faith in this thread; if you and your views fall within this all-encompassing faith, then that is great. But the "Christian" faith, in its entirety, is not "your" faith. The definition of "Christian" is not up to you to decide.

- "Your" personal faith can very well be within the "Christian" faith, but the entire "Christian" faith is not "your" faith. If "Christianity" is like the set of all types of fruit, then your idea of faith within Christianity is one type of fruit; it fits in that category, but there are many other types of fruit as well, that are just as rightfully "fruit" as yours.


You seem to believe that your take on Christianity is the right one, and others are simply wrong. Well, this is the exact form of intolerance that can lead to fear, which is the idea of this thread. You may say that you are not a fundamentalist (not all fundamentalists are intolerant anyway), and maybe you aren't (Catholic?), but you are certainly intolerant.

Intolerance is what most of us don't like coming from religion, and your above quote embodies the mindset of religious intolerance.

When people feel that they, or their possessions, have been attacked, they become fearful, angry, and perhaps dangerous. No wonder this discussion has gone absolutely nowhere in the last few pages! :sarcastic: