Of course it’s relevant. If Jesus was the son of God then it makes sense that he can forgive people for their sins. On the other hand if he wasn’t the son of God then he was just some nut and who wants to follow a nut and why would his words carry any weight?
Marc
Thomas the Unbeliever had some serious faith problems and he still was a Christian…
I don’t have a Bible here, but in I-think-Corinthians-II, Paul has a beautiful piece about Love being the whole point.
The truth is the truth; no matter who speaks it. It is the spirit of love and forgiveness and compassion for other sinners that I honor.
For sake of argument: Assume Jesus was the bastard love child of Mary. They were rescued from certain stoning by the compassion of Joseph. If anything, that carries greater hope for all of us that even a love child was offered and understood the love of god(dess).
ItS
r~
You’re *exactly * the kind of christian that gives christians a bad name. I’m not honored to be tacked on to your organization against my will simply because that’s how you interpret christianity. You have no more business defining what christianity is than the man in the moon. A quick look around will give you dozens of definitions that are in direct opposition to yours. Who died and made YOU god?
The fact that you choose to attribute your enthusiasm to a religious movement is your business; but it doesn’t mean it’s correct or that non-followers appreciate your self-righteous efforts to include the rest of the world in your club.
Thank you very much for your insightful and thoughtful answer.
:rolleyes:
You’re right, I’d completely forgotten about the creeds. I suppose that would limit me from being Episcopalian or Anglican.
Is that another name for Doubting Thomas?
ur-Lord Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever and white gold wielder?
I was not aware I had an organization. I am simply a voice in the wildernet seeking the truth; no matter the words of others.
Please reread my posts more carefully and without the baggage that the pseudo-christians have forced on you. Please tell me specifically what you have against the spirit of love and forgiveness and compassion and why that spirit carries a bad name for you.
ItS
r~
OH-kay. If you’re interested, that makes you a Dynamist according to the ancient tabulation of Christian heresies.
With reference to Anglicans, there are set creedal statements to which one is supposed to adhere. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral summarizes them quite nicely. However, where Anglicanism parts company with most of Christianity is in not demanding one particular sense be placed on them. If your beliefs are such that you can meaningfully recite the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds and mean something valid to yourself by them, that’s sufficient for your own conscience and for us. Since they are invested in language part metaphorical and part literal, it’s your choice how to understand any given phrase, so long as you intend it meaningfully to have a particular meaning which you can articulate. (How does one “sit at the right hand of” an omnipresent Being without body, parts, or passions? In a symbolic sense, of course. What does "he arose on the third day’ signify, and why that? You have a little discretion in interpreting the meaning of that clause.)
By organization, I mean the group that you refer to as holding the spirit of the christ. There are many interpretations of who and what christ was. Not all of them flattering or something to aspire to.
I have nothing against any of the qualities you mention. I have a huge problem with you using the whole christ thing interchangeably with those qualities. This statement in particular:
is narrow and insulting. No matter what we think, your way is the answer? Puh-leeeeeeze.
Seeking the truth is a good thing…seeking the truth and attributing all the good in the world to christ is rather limiting and delusional. Assuming I’d be honored to be considered a christian (or somehow crestfallen to be considered an anti-christian) is rather presumptuous.
You presume too much. I am not limiting all good to the word christ. I am choosing that particular word to express the spirit I honor. I recognize the difference between words and spirit. If your brother’s name was falsely attributed to evil, would you not seek to restore it?
ItS
r~
Please tell me the name for the Anglican heretics that invoke the name christ to persecute sin.
r~
rwjefferson, I don’t know if you and I bring the same meaning to the expression “the Christ,” but I can agree with what you are saying when I see it in my own terms.
I am a Christian. But I find value in the teachings of many and I respect the different spiritual journeys and pathways that others follow. When I really connect with someone and understand and am both open and accepting, then I can say to him, “I behold the Christ in you..” And he might say, “I behold the Sacred in you.” And it is the same thing – no matter what his religious faith.
I really don’t go around doing this much. It’s more of a metaphorical thing.
It is like the hymn “In Christ There Is No East or West.” I really don’t distinguish the Christ from anything that is Sacred.
But I don’t know. It’s a mystery.
(And I think Kalhoun is a mischievous angel with a crooked halo.)
[QUOTE=Zoe
(And I think Kalhoun is a mischievous angel with a crooked halo.)[/QUOTE]
Heh…well, if there were such a thing as angels, and I was one of them, I’d probably be wearing my halo backwards (and my wings would be made of studded leather). 
Christians believe in the divinity of Christ, at least in the post-Nicean flavours. You can deny the alleged divinity of Christ and still be a Christian in the same sense that you can believe in the divinity of Christ and still be a muslim: you can’t.
Unless, that is, you establish the Church of People Who Really Admire Christ but Don’t Really Believe all of that God Nonsense.
While there is a wid variance of belief in the Christian sects, all of the legitimate sects believe in the divinity of Christ.
If you allow the term Chrisitian to be warped as to allow the non-divinity of Christ, then the Muslims are Christians, and so are the Bahai’s: both religions acknowlede Christ as a Capital P Prophet, but not his divinity.
But what if you believe in the divinity of everything? Christ is divine, but so are you, and I, and this tree outside my window. And the window.
Then you’re playing silly buggers. Or, alternatively :D, you subscribe to another religion which is not Christianity.
Just a question for the sake of technical curiosity, more than anything…
I was reading the thread and trying to remember why I had the impression of the attitude of Anglicans toward doctrine that I did. I can’t find any sources relevant to my original education on the subject, but I did find a link of almost astonishing relevance:
Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Christ’s divinity as part of the Trinity, these are some of the major orthodox assertions of the Creed. If there were any three beliefs that I would have assumed were simply essential and non-negotiable for a Christian, by definition, it would have been them. The article appears to demonstrate, however, through Robinson’s experience (I don’t know what portion of the Creed “vexed” Robinson), that a more heterodox interpretation of the Creed is still compatible with membership, and may very well include some or all of the Big Three I mentioned. Is this correct or not?
Oh, absolutely I subscribe to a different religion entirely. I just like to poke people with a proverbial stick and force them to concede that there’s more than 3 religions in the world.
And I can easily believe in the divinity of Christ without being a “Christian”.
poke poke
I’ve stayed out of the discussion because most of my stuff is in storage, so I don’t have access to citations. Still, this notion that Christianity requires Christ to be divine has been repeated so many times by so many people that I’m going to wade in without them. But, first, a disclaimer. I’m not a Christian (though I used to be) (now an atheist, or strong agnostic depending on how one defines terms). To me this isn’t a matter of defending the faith. Rather, it is one of accurate history. Understand, then, that “is” below means “is believed” or similar such phrase.
Part of the problem may be the meaning of the word “divine.” Clearly, in one sense, Christ is divine merely as the Son of God. But that isn’t the same as saying that Christ is God (or, if one prefers, a God or a part of God). IMHO, early proto-orthodox Christians did not consider Christ to be God, a God or part of God. He was sui generis, but more akin to angels or prophets. Note that Christ always attributes his miracles to the Father. More importantly, salvation comes not from Christ but from the Father, at the right hand of whom the Son will sit.
It’s important to understand that this isn’t just nitpicking. The Gospels go out of their way to stress Christ’s humanity, not his divinity. Hence the temptation, Gethsemane, the scouging, etc., not to mention little flourishes like the nativities of Matthew and Luke. The reason they do so is that they were written in the context of a major doctrinal dispute with the Gnostics, who argued that, Christ being divine, didn’t actually die on the cross (you can’t kill a god) but only seemed to die. To the proto-orthodox, this was a dangerous heresy because, to them, for Christ’s resurrection to hold out real promise for mortals, it had to be parallel. A real man’s death and a real man’s resurrection.
So, how did mainstream Christianity come to believe that Christ is divine? This happened later, after the Gospels and Paul’s letters had been written. As the movement matured and expanded, two important issues arose. (We’re talking second and third centuries here.) One was, what was this sacrifice all about, anyway? What did it do and why was it necessary? The other was how to reconcile the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with monotheism, which pretty much everyone agreed was the only acceptable model. The answer to the first became vicarious atonement, which requires Christ to have infinite goodness. The answer to the latter became the Trinity, which has defied sensible comprehension ever since.
But, is it fair to say one can only be a Christian if one accepts these later concepts? In all sincerity, I don’t see it. Seems to me that accepting the Gospels as written should be good enough. And there have been several splinter sects over the centuries who did just that.