• Baahb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      My parents weren’t executed horribly, what are you talking about about? I’m still talking about contemporary Christian belief. Thesis: You can consider yourself Christian without belief in Jesus as a historical figure. Many Christians are happy to understand Jesus as metaphors and an ideal. Like if you took the actually good Superman stories and removed all the context, you could idealize the individual to the point of worship without believing he’s real.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The whole point of Christianity isn’t just to “do good”. The foundation is that we aren’t good enough by nature and are flawed by our own fault, but by trusting in and following God, we can be forgiven. Because Jesus literally existed and was executed for our sins.

        • Baahb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That feels a lot like your personal interpretation. You do not get to decide how people who call themselves Christian define themselves.

          Fables are worth listening to for the morals they include. Why wouldn’t an ancient holy book be a moralistic guide to show the way to heaven, whatever that is which is not defined in scripture

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m going to start calling myself “muslim” then, as “muslim” means “one who submits to God”

            • Baahb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              You go ahead and do that. Worth noting that Islam doesn’t have a protestant reformation thats come in to say “f this the rules are whatever I want them to be personally,” so it’s basically still in its Catholic hegemony phase.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The protestant reformation didn’t do that. In fact, it was the opposite. It was based on the Bible over everything and shedding the idea of a pope who can claim “the rules are whatever I want them to be personally”

                • Baahb@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  But that’s literally the second thing to happen in the protestant reformation. King Henry saw that Martin Luther guy and said “shit if he doesn’t have to listen to the Pope, I don’t either. Let’s strait up rewrite the Bible motherfucker!” So that the parts he didn’t like didn’t apply. Are you gonna say anglicans aren’t Christian?