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]

...you chose to get involved...

You asked me to answer the question.

From that post: "I am interested in Moses's and others for this claim that they now make". You had not made the claim that we are sinners at birth, so I did not ask "you" to answer the question at this point. You did answer it later, and I thank you for your answer.

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

That's a far cry from agreeing with you about sin. Yes, our social systems and structures are flawed, but like I said, and you conveniently left out, I think you are seeing nature and assigning it to your religious beliefs. Far from agreeing with you about sin.

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

Yup, I call it non sense to call a baby a "sinner" just because the human social system is flawed.
Are chimps sinners due to a flawed social system?
Are wolves sinners due to a flawed social system?

[Flail]

...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.

Please explain why it is necessary in debate to 'come to terms with contemporary theology'? It seems to me that contemporary theology is little more than a collection of more modern opinions as to the superstitious opinions of old. Why are anyone's opinions about God more valuable than someone else's? Sine there is not evidence for God, isn't opinion all we have?

[McCulloch]

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

Please explain why it is necessary in debate to 'come to terms with contemporary theology'? It seems to me that contemporary theology is little more than a collection of more modern opinions as to the superstitious opinions of old. Why are anyone's opinions about God more valuable than someone else's? Sine there is not evidence for God, isn't opinion all we have?

Would it make sense to argue modern politics framed only in the terms and understandings of the eighteenth century? Not unless you are a supporter of Ron Paul .

It appears to me that in EduChris' view, the wildly popular evangelical and fundamentalist theologies are the theological analogy to the Flat Earthers. We really do have to encourage them to abandon their dogmatic certainty with the more contemporary and nuanced understandings, which may be difficult to grasp.

[showme]

In my opinion all a person has to do to become a Christian is to be born again. To become born again you have to accept the fact that you are a sinner, repent of your sin, and accept Christ as your savior. "Accepting Christ" means to believe His sacrifice has paid for your sin.

You do not have to believe any other part of the Bible in order to be a Christian.

Once you are born again, you can never be unborn again. If you once called yourself a "Christian" and have now "left the faith", you were never born again.

This is the New International Version, John 10;

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Fathers hand. 30 I and the Father are one.

Note it says God's children shall never perish, nor can anyone snatch them out of God's hand.

You have several problems with your post. First of all Yeshua is referring to "My sheep". He is not referring to Paul's sheep, or Peter's sheep, or Al Gore's sheep.
Second of all, to be born again, you have to die to oneself, and then be born in the Spirit of God. When you are born in the Spirit of God, you cannot sin, for God cannot sin.
The platitudes about believing in Christ and being "saved", is pure nonsense. You have to believe in the testimony of Yeshua and then heed that testimony to the end. Everything else is based on the leaven of the Pharisees which has tainted the whole loaf.
Yeshua prophesized that the stumbling blocks would come, and they came, but he warned that those through who they came, that it wouldn't go well with them. In the Day of Lord, Yeshua will tell them, I do not know you. Mt 7

[Slopeshoulder]

I only read the thread title...

It depends how certainty is defined.

If it means good old logical, evidentiary, cognitive certainty, then no. It is not required, and it isn't even possible. Faith without doubt is impossible, it wouldn't be faith. And to be certain about the unknowable is an absurdity, a farce, a fundamental getting-it-wrong.

The better way to think about certainty in a religious context is as an abiding existential commitment. The "certainty" of one's entire being in one's entire life, not some sort of narrow mental rigidness.

So rather than unjustifiable intellectual closed mindedness, we're dealing with commitment to be a certain way in the world and abide in an orientation that we find transformative. THAT kind of certainty. In theological circles, we'd say that this kind of "certainty" would be more "narrative" than "neotic." The matter is then settled in our selves, in the nexus of person and praxis, as theologians would say, where it matters. But this should NEVER cause us to set a reasonable threshold of reason aside. No religion should call for or rely upon that kind of thing. And as far as I know, when properly understood, they don't. Of that I'm pretty certain.

Too often this is confused.

[Slopeshoulder]

It appears to me that in EduChris' view, the wildly popular evangelical and fundamentalist theologies are the theological analogy to the Flat Earthers. We really do have to encourage them to abandon their dogmatic certainty with the more contemporary and nuanced understandings, which may be difficult to grasp.

And I wholeheartedly agree.
So why not make common cause against the flat earthers in religion?
Then we can all calm down and have enjoyable and respectful conversations about what might be or not be divine/real and what this may or may not mean for our lives, finding the beauty in each others' positions and then having a beer while respectfully disagreeing on a few things but then considering each others' opinions deep into the night?
Once the flat earthers are set aside, things would be so much better.

But wait, there's more...We all have a duty to understand the best in each other's positions.
I will say, and I think EduChris is right if he has said or implied this, that the educated and professional theological community, and their followers and readers, makes endless, good faith, and happy voluntary efforts to understand philosophy, science, and all the other secular fields on the their own terms, NOT to attack them, but the average secularist makes little attempt to truly engage the best and equivalent religious thinking. This is a damn shame and they should do better. Reducing all that to glossed up superstition is an unworthy comment from my friend Flail. And it places an unfair burden on the religious (trying to learn, be fair to, and carry all knowledge) and it let's the anti-religionists off pretty cheaply. I'd be delighted and amazed to encounter a modern atheist who has a nuanced and appreciative understanding of the best modern religious thinking. I'm sure there are quite a few in graduate religious studies departments or at Harvard divinity school. But they're not here and they don't really participate in these kinds of apologetic/anti-apologetic debates. Maybe they're past it?
In the meantime there are countless educated religionsist with thorough and appreciative knowledge of the wide range of human thought and learning. They're just not often found in the ultraorthodox, biblicist, storefront, megachurch extreme, and yes, those folks are talkative and loud! But they should not drown out or hide the reality of their betters.

[Slopeshoulder]

When I was a (evangelical) Christian, I certainly believed that one had to accept the "fundamentals" of the faith and believe them with certainty in order to be a "true Christian." Once I began questioning the "fundamentals," the whole house of cards fell and I ended up leaving Christianity.

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

[Flail]

It appears to me that in EduChris' view, the wildly popular evangelical and fundamentalist theologies are the theological analogy to the Flat Earthers. We really do have to encourage them to abandon their dogmatic certainty with the more contemporary and nuanced understandings, which may be difficult to grasp.

And I wholeheartedly agree.
So why not make common cause against the flat earthers in religion?
Then we can all calm down and have enjoyable and respectful conversations about what might be or not be divine/real and what this may or may not mean for our lives, finding the beauty in each others' positions and then having a beer while respectfully disagreeing on a few things but then considering each others' opinions deep into the night?
Once the flat earthers are set aside, things would be so much better.

But wait, there's more...We all have a duty to understand the best in each other's positions.
I will say, and I think EduChris is right if he has said or implied this, that the educated and professional theological community, and their followers and readers, makes endless, good faith, and happy voluntary efforts to understand philosophy, science, and all the other secular fields on the their own terms, NOT to attack them, but the average secularist makes little attempt to truly engage the best and equivalent religious thinking. This is a damn shame and they should do better. Reducing all that to glossed up superstition is an unworthy comment from my friend Flail. And it places an unfair burden on the religious (trying to learn, be fair to, and carry all knowledge) and it let's the anti-religionists off pretty cheaply. I'd be delighted and amazed to encounter a modern atheist who has a nuanced and appreciative understanding of the best modern religious thinking. I'm sure there are quite a few in graduate religious studies departments or at Harvard divinity school. But they're not here and they don't really participate in these kinds of apologetic/anti-apologetic debates. Maybe they're past it?
In the meantime there are countless educated religionsist with thorough and appreciative knowledge of the wide range of human thought and learning. They're just not often found in the ultraorthodox, biblicist, storefront, megachurch extreme, and yes, those folks are talkative and loud! But they should not drown out or hide the reality of their betters.

Well of course I agree, in theory. I have learned much from yourself and EduChris and referred reading in contemporary theology...I like it...it makes sense...as philosophy...but to me it is not Christian at all, nor is it Biblical per se, nor does it have anything whatever to do with the BibleGod, nor with any supernatural being to be worshipped...which makes it full of wonderful, nuanced insights...

But don't forget I live in the real world, and as I reminded you some time ago, out here Bubba thinks 'existential' is maybe a car part; Christianity as Bubba sees it IS a superstition...it's all Christian and all Biblical. Bubba and even his less fundamentalist counterparts far outnumber those who are steeped in modern theology. What to do? It's your religion.

[Shermana]

...How is being born sinful?...This whole concept does not compute.

There are scholarly conceptualizations of "sin" which would answer this question for you, if you had any exposure to intellectual Christian thought. Since you claim to have had exposure to such thought, perhaps you should answer your own question on the basis of your (oft-claimed, but otherwise unevidenced) intellectual background...

Are you serious? I already know my past answers to this question.
For what should be an obvious reasons, I am not interested in my past justifications for this claim. I am interested in Moses's and others for this claim that they now make. You know, to better understand their thinking.

Please get off your high horse and either answer the question or try to stay on topic.

Just for the record, 1 John 3:4 clearly defines the definition of Sin as "Lawlessness", and it'd be pretty fair to say that in all Gospel contextual usage of the term "Law" it applies to Mosaic Law, not Western Culture or Roman Culture law, so the question of what Sin is in Christian Theology SHOULD be recognized as "that which is against the Torah", and any other definition being seen as revisionist If any "scholar" has any other opinion of what "sin" is supposed to mean biblically, perhaps one of them has a handy list of what is and isn't sin, and what the consequence of each is. The NT even says there are "Mortal" sins as if there's a category like how the Catholics do, similar to the OT concept of death penalty sins. Otherwise, any attempt to redefine "Sin" outside of its usage as "Lawlessness" in terms of Mosaic "Law" is revisionism that has no actual framework of what is and isn't "Sin".

Just sayin'...

[Haven]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy? Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God? How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life? I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.