Let’s say, for the sake of a mental exercise, that I’ve decided that I don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. I now believe that when he spoke of being a Son of God that he meant that we were all sons and daughters of God. Since he spoke of having faith the size of a mustard seed and being able to move mountains and such, and since Peter was able to walk on water for that brief moment where he had enough faith, his miracles should theoretically be able to be duplicated by anyone who wants it bad enough.
If these are now my beliefs, am I no longer a Christian? If so, what am I? If not, what denomination best fits my new belief structure?
Try the Unitarian Universalists. I thought I’d never set foot in a church again, seeing how I’m basically atheist, but I’ve really found it rewarding. I’ve been going for a couple of months now.
Sure! You can be a christian! They are about as ununified a “group” as you’ll ever find. You can believe monkeys flew out of Mary’s butt and still call yourself a christian. 1000 splinter groups can’t be wrong!
I don’t think those beliefs would fit with Biblical or historic C’tian faith- not even by Arian standards. UU or Religious-Science/Mind-Science or New Age might fit.
1 : In practical terms, you’re a Christian if you say you are a Christian.
2 : In philosophical terms, it seems to me a “True Christian” would be someone who followed Christ and his teachings; whether or not he was semidivine and performed miracles is fairly irrelevant. After all, he was right or he was wrong; performing miracles wouldn’t make him any righter or wronger.
That would really depend on who you ask. I think in some Episcopal/Anglican churches, for instance, you’d be welcomed even if you openly expressed doubts about the divinity of Christ. The Anglican communion got around sectarian strife basically by eschewing core doctrine in favor of a set liturgy which one is free to believe in or not to at least some degree. What it is, exactly, that unifies all members of the Anglican Communion is presently a source of considerable debate, and answers are difficult to come by because it is not a “doctrinal” church, by design. Are there non-Christian Episcopalians? I think they all arguable fall under the “Christian” umbrella, but, again, this seems to be an “it depends” sort of issue.
IANAC, but I think that if you reject the divinity of Jesus, you’d not be considered Christian by most Christians. The notion of the trinity has been an established part of the religion for quite a while, and the gnostics didn’t come out on top.
Then again, the eastern European Unitarians would have no problem with you (neither would the American ones, but then they don’t have a problem with anyone, not that that’s a bad thing).
I guess what I’m saying is, yeah, you’re free to call yourself Christian, but if you consider being part of a community as an important aspect of a religion, your options are considerably narrowed if you don’t believe Jesus was divine.
Well, the belief you describe is contrary to the the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed, both of which state that Jesus is “of one being with the Father… through Him all things were made.” Even Episcopalians/Anglicans agree on that (or are supposed to). So… you can call it anything you want, but it’s not really that similar to what most people consider Christian faith.
As weird as it sounds, I’m pretty sure one is free in the Anglican tradition to view the content of even the Nicene creed as optional, as, again, there are few requirements. Blame Queen Elizabeth I. Quite literally, all that is “officially” asked of you, and again only for liturgical purposes, is that you recite said creeds. Nobody can kick you out for whatever you believe, because no one has the authority to do so. Even individual clerics, acting on their own, couldn’t point to a core doctrine that is universally recognized for justification. QEI deliberately did away with all of that so as to keep the Catholics and the Anglicans from killing each other over theological issues. Of course, there could be raging disagreements all the same about such among Episcopalians, and indeed there are.
Lord A:
No matter how great or small you believe another’s sin, you must choose your own response. Will you persecute another sinner, or will you love and trust in the forgiveness of sins? Will you shun and ignore another sinner, or will you help secure their peaceful pursuit?
There are only two choices, you will respond either as anti-christian (deny peaceful pursuit on account of sin), or as christian (help secure peace in spite of sin). It matters not what you call yourself, or whether you believe jesus is god.
If christian is defined as a follower of the christ, most that believe in the divinity jesus are not.
Well, if you believe what he said was correct, then technically you are a “Christian”; a follower of Christ. But the term Christian has come to encompass so many other things that while it’s an accurate definition it no longer equals the same as the popular definition of a Christian.
So you’re saying that good people who work to help others secure peace are Christian? All of them? There’s not a single good person working to help others secure peace who is Buddhist, or Hindu, or Pagan or atheist? Or are all those good Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and atheists Christian in spite of their beliefs? That simply makes no sense whatsoever, and is highly insulting to boot.
Change it to “Christ-like” (or “Buddha-like”, or “devata-like” or “Goddess-like” or “good person-like”), and I’m right there with you. But “Christian” and “anti-Christian” in this context just make me go “huh?”
If christian is defined as one that holds the spirit of the christ, they are christian; no matter their path. That does not mean they are not also whatever faith they profess. The path is secondary to the destination. It can only be insulting in that the pseudo-christians have given christianity a bad name.
I would be honored to be considered a member of any faith that held the same spirit as the christ. It is not the word that defines christian, it is the spirit.
Please tell me what you do not understand about the concept that anti-christians persecute sinners, and christians do not. Anti-christians are not christian; no matter the claim.
I believe I understand the core sentiment, and that I agree with you. Where I’m stumbling (and this is most likely me stumbling over my own earth-bound ego, so please be patient with me) is that to call everyone good christian (I now notice you don’t capitalize it) seems to have the connotation that other leaders, other inspirations, other gods, are not as important as Christ. This rankles me, as a goddess worshiper, to feel like you’re saying my Goddess is subordinate to Christ, and that he…forgive me…gets the “credit” for my being a good person.
Does this make sense at all?
I know it’s silly, and that there’s no cosmic scorecard, and that being and doing good is the important and godlike thing. But I find such love and peace and guidance from Her that I want others to accept that She is as real as He is. I’m fighting an uphill battle (particularly on this board), but I still fight. In my heart and worldview, She is penultimate to no one.
Then again, in my view, She and He are both part of the same thing, so I should just let it go and realize we’re talking about the same thing using different words. But it’s those different words that get people killed, so I keep struggling to illuminate.
I make the distinction between jesus (the flesh) and the christ (the spirit of god held by the flesh; no matter the gender). The spirit transcends the flesh and the word; is not limited to any one mortal being; is available to any that would hold it.
Pseudo-christians idolize the word and the flesh at the expense of the spirit. That is why they persecute and kill.