Posted: Apr 21, 2017 6:42 pm
by PensivePenny
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

"Original Sin" isn't a requirement to make sense of the crucifixion.

It is. It is the whole reason for the crucifixion and worship of Jesus.

There are whole denominations that will disagree with you.

I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

PensivePenny wrote: The topic of "original sin" is highly controversial.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

PensivePenny wrote: Some believe that a person can live their entire life without ever sinning. Yet, they still follow Christ... thus they are Christians. I'm not arguing that they are right... just that that is how they interpret it. To say that someone isn't a Christian if they reject original sin (a concept conceived centuries after the death of christ), is a very narrow definition of the word.

I consider Quakers, Mormans, JWs, Adventists, Methodists, Calvinists, Catholics, all Christian. But they are all very different too.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.

Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.