Badfish

So they are purporting the notion that Adam didnt exist and that Christ wasnt born of a Virgin? Total heresy. Chritianity demands that one literally give their life to Christ and that would mean, following scriptural directions. They want their cake and eat it too, one problem, according to the bible these false prophets are in more trouble than an atheist.

Classical

This post is exactly my point. People do want their cake and eat it, too. They want to call themselves christians, but also want to be free to make up their own rules. Didn't god already make up the rules supposedly? "He that believeth not shall be damned."

For someone new to me that do not realize that I am not coming from an unbeliever's standpoint. I am coming from a former believer's standpoint. I tried to twist my understanding/way of defining christianity so that I could continue to call myself a christian, but at some point I just had to admit to myself: I am not a christian any more.

What point was this? It was at the point that the literalness was taken away, the point at which I no longer believed it even necessary to have someone die for "my sins." It was the point at which I realized there was no adam and eve, and thus no basis for original sin.

I think if I went up to jerry falwell and said: "I don't believe the bible is the word of god, nor do I believe that jesus died on the cross for my sins, nor do I believe there is such a place as hell, it is just a human invention, nor do I believe your god exists, but I still call myself a christian," I'm quite sure his response would be "son, you are not a christian in my book and you'd better dress for hot weather when you die!" I also think the pope would say the same thing and I am positive my very liberal episcopal friend I mentioned earlier would say that there are at least certain things a person has to believe to be able to rightfully call himself a christian.

If there is one thing I totally agree with the fundamentalists chrisitians about is the fact that many denominations are "chrisitian in name only", they have abandoned the basic dogma passed down through the centuries.

Rational BAC

Episcopalian here---

Jerry Falwell is the LAST person I would seek advice from as to what determines a Christian.

I believe that Christ existed as a type of deity taken human form for a short time. That He died on the cross and was resurrected. That He had some very valuable advice to give us concerning how we live our lives, and that He promised an afterlife.

That is the extent of my core Christian belief system.

The rest of it----original sin, ------the exact reasons for Christ's death and resurrection, ----the idea that the Bible is literally the word of God---------whether Paul was truly inspired by God in any of his writing.

-------I call all of that quite debateable. Belief or non-belief in any of that has nothing to do with whether one can call himself Christian.

And I am a most excellent Christian.

DBT

Srangely enough,I agree with you, and as it seems, does our friend the scotsman


Disclaimer;
That does not mean I agree with or support the belief itself though. :huh:

jmem

I agree wholeheartedly with Badfish and Classical, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. This is an endless source of frustration to me. If you have the good sense to recognize that the Bible's morals are hideous and it's stories are laughable myths, then dammit don't support it by calling yourself a Christian. The fundies happily count you among them when they're trying to gain support to force "God's will" upon the rest of us.

Ahab

Do you believe that God actually made up these rules? Or do you believe that people actually made them up?

And you still have not shown me any scripture stating that a core belief of Christianity involves interpreting it literally.

Unless you accept on faith the fundie's claim that the bible really had been written by God and that He meant it to be taken literally, what reason do you have for denying other Christians the right of their own rules? After all, the fundie's rules are made up by people too.

Classical

Nice to meet you.

You and me both but unfortunately he and others like him are leading millions of christians.

Thanks for the neat summary. You gave me the information I have been trying to get out of my episcopal friend for eight years.

Now here's my problem:
Christ existed as deity taken human form is a baseless assertion. This reminds me when I was at my friend's christmas party a few years ago and I had a four hour conversation with a brilliant woman who was a somethingaruther from his church. At that point I was still a deist, but when she suddenly looked me straight in the eyes and said "Of one thing I am sure, and that is that christ is the son of god." I responded to her that it was that type of statement where I become at a loss for words. (We're still great friends and last time I saw her she said "hell, I don't know what I believe anymore.")

If jesus lived and died on a cross that sounds reasonable as thousands were crucifed. Being resurrected is sheer blind faith. There is absolutely no possible way of verifying this claim two thousand years later. Resurrection stories were common back them, so it being incorporated into the tale would not be unusual. Do you believe that Mohammed ascended into heaven? If not, why not? This is a claim also believed by millions. If so, explain why you also believe this, too.

As for the valuable advice, there's plenty of good and bad advice in what jesus supposedly said, and some of the words are from well known literature predating the bible by many years. If you think I am making this up, then research it for yourself and you will see that this is easily verifiable. I didn't know any information like this until I began to research for myself.

Why are these things debatable that many believe and not the ones you have picked out to believe?

Could it honestly happen that we can get a good discussion going here? :thumbs:

There's a few around here who keep hijacking the good threads.

Rational BAC

Am sorry to have hijacked this thread. Was not my intention.

Carry on-----

Jobar

Hi, Classical. (And RBAC.)

You might find the thread I am a Christian/Christian Atheists interesting, Classical. Anitra, who came here as a cultural Christian/philosophical atheist, stirred up a lot of dispute and discussion over exactly what constitutes a Christian. I'm sorry she doesn't post here any more; though I disagreed with her on purely semantic grounds, I found her position quite fascinating, and the lady herself a wonderful person.

Classical

It is my current position that the liberal, modernist christians are simply following their watered-down version for two reasons:
a.) their intellects rebel against the original version because it is too narrow
b.) they do not desire the possibility of living a life without faith or no hope of an afterlife.

As to item b.), I think most people could understand this; I know I certainly can. It takes courage to face life without faith and to abandon a hope of afterlife. I believe this to be a personal transitional process.

One time I read that facing the idea of dying with no afterlife could be compared to how it felt before being born. It felt like nothing - just non-existence. Reading this made me think about this whole concept of nonexistence. I think after one considers that this may be our only life, then each day becomes very important and each experience has greater meaning. It is a different personal journal for everyone.