Posted: Apr 25, 2017 4:04 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
theropod wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS


Well, the central tenets of Christianity have changed several times over the century, from marriage, female priests, to the way one get's into heaven.
It's also a bit of stretch to compare Republicans to Christians. There aren't 6000 different Republican denominations after all.


So Christianity is whatever one wants it to be? This is the entire point that somehow seems to escape everyone. There comes a point where abandonment of of these central tenets disqualifies said factions from being able to claim, or be considered, Christianity. So, is what Jim Jones did and taught also Christianity? Nobody seems to want to address this question. He called his insanity Christianity, but wasn't it simply insanity?

No it isn't a stretch to use the Republican example because words, and positions, have meaning.

But the differences between Republicans are smaller than those between even the dominant sects of Christianty.
Look I agree with you that it's silly to define Christianity as whatever anyone wants it to be, but I've yet to see someone present a coherent, rigiourous definition of a True Christian.