Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

Og · 07-21-2007, 08:42 PM

You do not need to believe in a literal god or that the acts of christ are literal in order to be a christian. I acknowledge christ's message and think it is a valid and powerful one. I do not take it literally (and no rational individual who can see beyond his nose does). Jesus' message is the same as that of the Buddha.

If you make the definition that Christians are those that express the nicean creed or the apostle's creed (i.e. "I believe in god the father allmighty, creator of heaven and earth.. etc") then you have that definition and a literal interpretation of the canonical texts is the only way to be a christian.. Furthermore, the recent declaration of the pope requires that you be catholic to be a true christian (all other churches are wrong).

A broader definition is someone who understands, interprets, and follows the recorded teachings of jesus christ in some way or another. That's all a christian is.

If you limit it to the above, you have to discard the obvious influences of the buddhist missionaries of ashoka and the archeological discoveries of mixed east/west cultures on the roman silk road and the identity between the christ story and the buddha story. You have to reject the coptic/gnostic texts found in 1948 at nag hamadi (some of which were written as short as 20 years after jesus' death as opposed to 50 or more). You also have to reject reason, observation, and all of modern science.

Literalism is stupid and shouldn't pigeon hole the ideas that Christ put forth. They have value and are powerful in a way just like the buddha's and others. They represent an infusion of cultures.

Anyway, I think that saying that being christian requires a belief in god in a literal sense is close minded and rejects a lot of important details of the history of the time period.

07-21-2007, 08:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
Og Campbellite Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Northern, VA Posts: 2,643	You do not need to believe in a literal god or that the acts of christ are literal in order to be a christian. I acknowledge christ's message and think it is a valid and powerful one. I do not take it literally (and no rational individual who can see beyond his nose does). Jesus' message is the same as that of the Buddha. If you make the definition that Christians are those that express the nicean creed or the apostle's creed (i.e. "I believe in god the father allmighty, creator of heaven and earth.. etc") then you have that definition and a literal interpretation of the canonical texts is the only way to be a christian.. Furthermore, the recent declaration of the pope requires that you be catholic to be a true christian (all other churches are wrong). A broader definition is someone who understands, interprets, and follows the recorded teachings of jesus christ in some way or another. That's all a christian is. If you limit it to the above, you have to discard the obvious influences of the buddhist missionaries of ashoka and the archeological discoveries of mixed east/west cultures on the roman silk road and the identity between the christ story and the buddha story. You have to reject the coptic/gnostic texts found in 1948 at nag hamadi (some of which were written as short as 20 years after jesus' death as opposed to 50 or more). You also have to reject reason, observation, and all of modern science. Literalism is stupid and shouldn't pigeon hole the ideas that Christ put forth. They have value and are powerful in a way just like the buddha's and others. They represent an infusion of cultures. Anyway, I think that saying that being christian requires a belief in god in a literal sense is close minded and rejects a lot of important details of the history of the time period. __________________ Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe) The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi Become Who You Are