I've always found it ironic that the religious wingnuts in this country.....

[Boomboom521]

As the wise Walter Sobchak once said ..."You're way out of your fvcking element here, Donnie"

Don't try to box either of them in to you're understanding or classification of Christianity. You are talking at the 30kft level thinking you're at the 1000 ft level. Truly applying the classic libtard level of logic towards religion. That isn't to imply you're a tard. To provide an analogy, it would be like someone who just watched "Interstellar" trying to discuss astrophysics with Michio Kaku.

I don't deny that the depths of Christianity are unexplored territory for me. I just simply wanted to know if Cajun considered himself a Christian. I used the term religious, and now the "debate" is off on a very useless tangent. It's sad that Christians don't stand together.

 

[Boomboom521]

No. There is with Christendom faiths that do not attribute deity to Jesus.

Are you saying that there are Christian sects that do not believe Jesus was the son of god given to the world to suffer for their sins so they might be saved?

 

[Boomboom521]

No. There is with Christendom faiths that do not attribute deity to Jesus.

Because that would be new and interesting knowledge for me.

 

[CAJUNEER]

Are you saying that there are Christian sects that do not believe Jesus was the son of god given to the world to suffer for their sins so they might be saved?

Yes. That is what I'm say.

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes. That is what I'm say.

How is that Christianity?

 

[Boomboom521]

How is that Christianity?

And how does that follow the tenets put forth by the holy bible?

 

[CAJUNEER]

Because that would be new and interesting knowledge for me.

This field is know as Christology. Two questions which are indelibly linked are: "Who was/is Jesus?" and "What was the significance of his death?" The answer to the second question determine one's "theory of atonement." Those concluding Jesus was and is the Son of God typically hold to one of two theories of atonement. First is the Ransom Theory (a.k.a. Christus Victor Theory). This theory states Jesus gave his life as ransom to pay for the sin of all humankind. Some believed the ransom was owed to Satan, others to God. I say "believed" because very few accept this theory today.

Second is the more widely accepted theory, the Penal Sustitutionary Theory. This theory says Jesus' vicarious suffering and death paid the penalty for the sin of humanity. Some believe all humanity, others only those humans who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. According to this teaching the wrath of God against sin is "latent" in Creation. The penalty for sin is death--that is eternal separation from God. Jesus' blood, being of divine nature, is of infinite value. He paid the penalty for all sin for all time with his blood, making possible eternal union with God.

Those who do not accept the deity of Christ hold to the Exemplary Theory of atonement. Jesus was a good man who taught us to put others before ourselves, demonstrating his commitment to this way of life to the point of death. Jesus atoned in that we were ignorant of God's desires for us. He atoned for our ignorance by showing us the way we ought to live.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I just simply wanted to know if Cajun considered himself a Christian.

Well why didn't you ask that?? :sunglasses:

 

[CAJUNEER]

How is that Christianity?

Read above.

 

[TarHeelEer]

And how does that follow the tenets put forth by the holy bible?

Different interpretations of a flawed humanity. Some don't even try to understand the Bible, or, in the case of Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses, call another book the supreme book, and yet call themselves Christians.

 

[Boomboom521]

This field is know as Christology. Two questions which are indelibly linked are: "Who was/is Jesus?" and "What was the significance of his death?" The answer to the second question determine one's "theory of atonement." Those concluding Jesus was and is the Son of God typically hold to one of two theories of atonement. First is the Ransom Theory (a.k.a. Christus Victor Theory). This theory states Jesus gave his life as ransom to pay for the sin of all humankind. Some believed the ransom was owed to Satan, others to God. I say "believed" because very few accept this theory today.

Second is the more widely accepted theory, the Penal Sustitutionary Theory. This theory says Jesus' vicarious suffering and death paid the penalty for the sin of humanity. Some believe all humanity, others only those humans who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. According to this teaching the wrath of God against sin is "latent" in Creation. The penalty for sin is death--that is eternal separation from God. Jesus' blood, being of divine nature, is of infinite value. He paid the penalty for all sin for all time with his blood, making possible eternal union with God.

Those who do not accept the deity of Christ hold to the Exemplary Theory of atonement. Jesus was a good man who taught us to put others before ourselves, demonstrating his commitment to this way of life to the point of death. Jesus atoned in that we were ignorant of God's desires for us. He atoned for our ignorance by showing us the way we ought to live.

So I am wrong in believing that the Bible states that Jesus was the son of god? And that his being sent to earth through the virgin birth was with divine purpose?

 

[Boomboom521]

Read above.

But all follow the Holy Bible as "the word of God"?

 

[CAJUNEER]

So I am wrong in believing that the Bible states that Jesus was the son of god? And that his being sent to earth through the virgin birth was with divine purpose?

Yes to both. But what does it mean to say Jesus was the Son of God? Was he the Son of God in the sense that we are all God's children as some believe, or was Jesus the unique Son of God? Many within Christendom do not believe in the virgin birth.

 

[Boomboom521]

Different interpretations of a flawed humanity. Some don't even try to understand the Bible, or, in the case of Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses, call another book the supreme book, and yet call themselves Christians.

This makes anlittle more sense to me. I studied Jehovahs Witnessess briefly because my friend as a kid couldn't come to my birthday parties or exchange gifts at Christmas.....if I'm not mistaken, they still believe that Jesus is the son of god given for divine influence though.

 

[CAJUNEER]

But all follow the Holy Bible as "the word of God"?

No. Many within Christendom do not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

 

[CAJUNEER]

This makes anlittle more sense to me. I studied Jehovahs Witnessess briefly because my friend as a kid couldn't come to my birthday parties or exchange gifts at Christmas.....if I'm not mistaken, they still believe that Jesus is the son of god given for divine influence though.

That's pretty much correct.

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes to both. But what does it mean to say Jesus was the Son of God? Was he the Son of God in the sense that we are all God's children as some believe, or was Jesus the unique Son of God? Many within Christendom do not believe in the virgin birth.

So you're saying that Mark (I think it's right) didn't write of the angel that told Mary her child would be the son of god?

 

[Boomboom521]

No. Many within Christendom do not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Well I know that interpretations are varied, but all forms of interpretations and translations are derivative of the holy scriptures, right?

 

[Boomboom521]

Well why didn't you ask that?? :sunglasses:

I didn't think it was so easily misinterpreted

 

[CAJUNEER]

So you're saying that Mark (I think it's right) didn't write of the angel that told Mark her child would be the son of god?

I'm not saying that. Luke, not Mark, tells the account some within Christendom consider a myth--a birth narrative like others from antiquity intended to bolster the significance and destiny of a life.

 

[CAJUNEER]

Well I know that interpretations are varied, but all forms of interpretations and translations are derivative of the holy scriptures, right?

No to interpretations. Yes to translations. You may be unaware the original languages of the Bible are three: Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, and Koine Greek (common Greek) in the New Testament. All sound translations are made from these texts.

 

[Boomboom521]

No to interpretations. Yes to translations. You may be unaware the original languages of the Bible are three: Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, and Koine Greek (common Greek) in the New Testament. All sound translations are made from these texts.

Very good info, and I appreciate it very much. So, are there no common tenets (other than a Devine being) that all sects of Christianity share?

 

[CAJUNEER]

Commonalities: one God. A moral life--though what is and is not moral varies widely.

 

[Boomboom521]

Commonalities: one God. A moral life--though what is and is not moral varies widely.

I believe in a form of energy that embodies everything, and "creates" the properties of existence. I don't believe the Bible is the word of god, and I don't believe Jesus is the son of god. I do however believe in a moral life, so am I a Christian?

 

[CAJUNEER]

I believe in a form of energy that embodies everything, and "creates" the properties of existence. I don't believe the Bible is the word of god, and I don't believe Jesus is the son of god. I do however believe in a moral life, so am I a Christian?

No. You believe in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

A person is a Christian who self identify as such. Many who are Christian are so because the accept the life of Christ as exemplary, yet do not believe the Bible is the word of God or Jesus is the unique Son of God.

 

[Boomboom521]

No. You believe in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

A person is a Christian who self identify as such. Many who are Christian are so because the accept the life of Christ as exemplary, yet do not believe the Bible is the word of God or Jesus is the unique Son of God.

You're not as much of a dick as I thought. But it's still pretty flakey to me that someone can claim to believe in a faith, but follow none of the tenets of a faith.

 

[CAJUNEER]

You're not as much of a dick as I thought. But it's still pretty flakey to me that someone can claim to believe in a faith, but follow none of the tenets of a faith.

That’s because you narrowly defined the faith. Christendom is very broad. I was much more specific. Rather than calling myself a Christian I said I am a follow of Jesus Christ. I accept Jesus as the one and only Son of God, the Christ (which comes from the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah), and indeed Yahweh God in the flesh. I accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. I accept there is salvation in no one other than Jesus Christ. I am Christian, but that label really tells you little about what I believe.

 

[Boomboom521]

That’s because you narrowly defined the faith. Christendom is very broad. I was much more specific. Rather than calling myself a Christian I said I am a follow of Jesus Christ. I accept Jesus as the one and only Son of God, the Christ (which comes from the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah), and indeed Yahweh God in the flesh. I accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. I accept there is salvation in no one other than Jesus Christ. I am Christian, but that label really tells you little about what I believe.

Well understood now, thanks to the good DISCUSSION.

 

[dave]

That's bs STRAWMAN

Apparently you dont understand what Kennedy campaigned for nor do you know what a strawman is. Go figure.

 

[countryroads89]

If Kennedy were alive today he wouldnt be a democrat.

That's bs STRAWMAN

Dave is an idiot, but I'm sure you have already figured that out.

 

[dave]

Dave is an idiot, but I'm sure you have already figured that out.

I am not the smartest man and not the smartest on this forum but I am significantly smarter than you and have proven as much many times over.

 

[countryroads89]

I am not the smartest man and not the smartest on this forum but I am significantly smarter than you and have proven as much many times over.

 

[dave]

Appropriately dense response.

 

[Boomboom521]

Apparently you dont understand what Kennedy campaigned for nor do you know what a strawman is. Go figure.

I know a lot about Kennedy. My first daughter is named for the man. And you're wrong. As for the strawman bs....I only use it, because you have overused the hell out of it.

 

[dave]

I know a lot about Kennedy. My first daughter is named for the man. And you're wrong. As for the strawman bs....I only use it, because you have overused the hell out of it.

You do make a lot of strawman arguments but I didnt make one. I gave what is commonly called an opinion.

 

[Boomboom521]

You do make a lot of strawman arguments but I didnt make one. I gave what is commonly called an opinion.

Geez, I don't know. You say it a lot when I give my "opinion".

 

[dave]

Geez, I don't know. You say it a lot when I give my "opinion".

Ok. But you called it a strawman and it wasnt. That was my point.

 

[Boomboom521]

Ok. But you called it a strawman and it wasnt. That was my point.

I asked this earlier: what constitutes a strawman argument? I understood it to be a false opinion asserted to create an argument that uses logic that the strawman is seeking to attack.

 

[countryroads89]

I asked this earlier: what constitutes a strawman argument? I understood it to be a false opinion asserted to create an argument that uses logic that the strawman is seeking to attack.

A strawman is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

e.g. dave's Kennedy post.

 

[Boomboom521]

A strawman is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

e.g. dave's Kennedy post.

Thanks for the clarification. I was so very wrong I guess