Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
I'll take exception to that. There is no good evidence that Jesus intended any sort of credal faith in starting his movement. To say that Christianity is undiluted when it is credal is to fundamentally ignore the history of the early Church. I understand that fundamentalism, post-reformation orthodoxy, and biblical literalism seem like they are the real Christianity, but the truth is that they are not. What does Christianity say in its undiluted form? Why not ask Jesus?
That, that is an examples of undiluted Christian teaching. Original sin is a construction of Aquinas, The Godhood of Christ and the virgin birth are Nicean additions, the five fundamentals come from the 1900s... So , i ask you to cease making statement about what True Christianity is about...becuase you have shown a propensity to singluarly focus on a specific strain, while deligitimating others. Why? I don't know...but it troubles me. You obviously have no love for fundamentalist belief, so i'm forced to believe that you are simply using a strawman, using the guilt and fear constructs of fundamentalist belief to try to force people out of mainline to liberal views, and then turn around and use those same constructs to attack fundamentalism. All you are proving is that fundamentalism is hard to defend logically...
|
Ok. point taken. I take back the "undiluted form" comment and replace it with "a particular form of christianity states".
My point was not so much to claim that christianity was hard to defend logically. But rather that christianity (like most religions) makes certain statements of fact. These facts are either true or false regardless of what you might believe. The idea that truth is somehow subjective was the idea that I was going against.
As such, there must be a religion which is "correct", in that the statements it makes are objectively true (independant of our ability to logically reason these facts/find any evidence for them).
To rephrase:
Most religions make statements of fact.
These often contradict statements made by other religions.
Therefore they can't ALL be right.
It is that case that either:
A: Only one religion is correct.
B: A small subset of religions are correct.
C: No religion is correct.
Either way, Parabola is faced with a problem, despite the fact that the first replies to this thread simply denied that any problem exists in the first place.