Posted: Apr 21, 2017 7:14 pm
by PensivePenny
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

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.

No, I am pointing out that claiming that anyone who claims to be, is a Christian leads to unfortunate consequences and that Christians often have to resort to fallacious No True Christian cherry-picking to avoid that.
In other words by cherry-picking the bible and then claiming the core message of Christianity isn't what the book says it is, and still claiming to be a Christian is silly.


Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

First, I'm not making the "claim" that a Christian is anyone who claims to be one, per se. However, just like the evolution of language words, like "christian," can change in meaning as a defacto standard. I don't see any extant definition of Christianity being objective. Certainly some definitions of the word can be more christ like or christ-adherent than some others, I suppose, but to completely extract whole swaths of the population from the christian set simply because of this or that minor point is also silly. Nowhere in the bible does it suggest one should pray to Mary. In fact, the argument is strong that to do so is a sin... yet millions of catholics do it often. Some denominations see crucifixes or statues of the Virgin Mary as idols... clearly not in keeping with the teachings of christ... and absolutely a violation of the OT. Many protestant religions actually consider the catholic church to be run by demons as a result... so not christian, if we accept their argument. All I'm saying is that the set of people self-identifying as christian practice in sometimes extremely different ways. Anyone within a certain envelope fall within that definition of 'christian' comfortably... others do not. From what I've seen, that 'envelope' is quite large and getting bigger all the time.

I know from personal experience, as well as my own reading, that not all christians agree with "original sin." It is mainstream and perfectly acceptable. A dog with 3 legs is still a dog.