Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Can one be a true Christian and still have doubts and uncertainty about some or all of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, the inerrancy of scripture etc?

[Clownboat]

Either that, or else it might have gained meaning.

I can no longer know if a person is saying they are white or they are a racist if they admit to being a racist.
Being white = Racist
Hating humans of another color = also racist.
The meaning has been muddied.

...I'm curious if Moses had this same view...I would venture a guess that he would have brought up the sin of Adam and Eve...

Moses Yoder subscribes to the same view of Christianity that you do; the only difference between you and him is that he likes that particular view, whereas you dislike it.

I do not subscribe to any view of religion, I await for a time when anyone might show that their beliefs are true (I better not hold my breath). Either way, my initial questions still stands to Moses. Why does he call me a sinner at birth?

Again, thank you for your explanation. Now that I have fully heard it from you, I can reject it as you fitting nature in with your religion.

[EduChris]

...Modify my definition of sin??? Why would I do that?...

If you are going to engage in theological discussion/debate at all, then you should at the very least understand how contemporary theologicans use the term.

It hardly makes sense for you to adopt one particular view of "sin," while ignoring more contemporary and nuanced understandings, and then go on to attack your simplistic understanding of sin (which Christian and Jewish theologians have outgrown long ago).

In effect, by refusing to come to terms with contemporary theology, you are doing nothing more than arguing with yourself.

[EduChris]

...The meaning has been muddied...

The meaning has been expanded.

"Level 1" racism: engaing in overt racist attitudes and behaviors (this is the one and only meaning which you seem to understand).

"Level 2" racism: white people in Western society benefitting from generations of white privilege (as a white person with white parents, you benefit from the same "white privilege" which your parents benefitted from, and in which you were conceived).

"Level 3" racism: society (blacks and whites alike) coming to accept the situation of "white privilege" and "white norm" as the unassailable status quo (i.e., this is the subtle and pervasive insinuation that black folks should just "work harder" to catch up to the "white norm").

[Clownboat]

...Modify my definition of sin??? Why would I do that?...

If you are going to engage in theological discussion/debate at all, then you should at the very least understand how contemporary theologicans use the term.

Incorrect, I need to understand how the other person in the debate is using the term, how contemporary theologians use it is of no help unless that is the definition that is being used at the time.

What I was saying is that the word "sin" is not a word that "I" use in reality (yes in debate), so that is why I would have no reason to modify "my" definition of it. Understand the context the other is using it in, yes, but you cannot demand that I in reality must accept that sin is real and your definition is the only one I should use.

It hardly makes sense for you to adopt one particular view of "sin," while ignoring more contemporary and nuanced understandings, and then go on to attack your simplistic understanding of sin (which Christian and Jewish theologians have outgrown long ago).

In effect, by refusing to come to terms with contemporary theology, you are doing nothing more than arguing with yourself.

Please tell me and the readers EduChris, what is my adopted view of sin?
While your at it, why don't you tell me what the name of my favorite unicorn is, or how tall I think leprechaun are.

[EduChris]

...I await for a time when anyone might show that their beliefs are true...

Yes, indeed you are in for a long wait, since no one can "show that their beliefs are true." We all interpret reality (whatever it is) within the metaphysical framework which we have partially adopted and partially constructed. No person can actually demonstrate that their metaphysical framework is ontologically "true"; instead, metaphysical frameworks are adopted and constructed and revised on the basis of their ability to render the whizzings and whirrings of unobservable quarks and gluons into some sort of cohesive, subjective intelligibility.

[EduChris]

...Please tell me and the readers EduChris, what is my adopted view of sin?...

At the very least I can say that your view is deliberately and intentionally opposed to the views of contemporary theologians on the matter--despite the paradox (contradiction?) of your having also expressed your agreement with that view.

[Clownboat]

...Please tell me and the readers EduChris, what is my adopted view of sin?...

At the very least I can say that your view is deliberately and intentionally opposed to the views of contemporary theologians on the matter--despite the paradox (contradiction?) of your having also expressed your agreement with that view.

You are way off the mark. I don't think sin is real, it is a term used by the religious. You have your definition of sin, other religious people have their own definition of sin. I do not use the word "sin" when dealing with reality.
Will you ever stop telling others what they think?

Maybe you will have better luck telling me the name of my favorite unicorn, or how tall a the average leprechaun is. I bring this up because those are also things that don't exist in my reality.

Let me sum it up for you so we can hopefully move on:
I don't believe in unicorns, so I don't have a favorite unicorn.
I don't believe in leprechauns, so I don't know the average height.
I don't believe sin is real, so I cannot have a personal view on it (other than being a term useful for the religious).

[EduChris]

...Will you ever stop telling others what they think?...

You asked how it could be construed that babies are "sinners." I gave you a fairly standard contemporary theological viewpoint on the matter, which you subsequently disagreed and agreed with.

Thus I am forced to admit that I have no idea what you really think, since you have essentially covered all of the bases while simulataneously denying that you have done any such thing.

[Clownboat]

...Will you ever stop telling others what they think?...

You asked how it could be construed that babies are "sinners." I gave you a fairly standard contemporary theological viewpoint on the matter, which you subsequently disagreed and agreed with.

Thus I am forced to admit that I have no idea what you really think, since you have essentially covered all of the bases while simulataneously denying that you have done any such thing.

This had nothing to do with what "I thought". I asked Moses to explain why he thought I was born a sinner. From there you chose to get involved.

Again, thank you for your contemporary theological response as to why "you" think babies are born sinful. I reject your claims as non-sense, and still await Moses's explanation for examination.

[EduChris]

...you chose to get involved...

You asked me to answer the question.

Then you agreed with my answer, admitting that "we are part and parcel of social systems & structures which are hopelessly flawed in numerous ways."

And now you have rejected that same answer "as non-sense."