Who Represents Christianty?

[Divine Insight]

Isn't the Church of Christianity supposed to represent Jesus?

Didn't Jesus hang around with sinners proclaiming that sinners are the ones who need salvation the most?

If so, then shouldn't "Christian Churches" embrace sinners and invite them openly into their congregations?

Question for debate: Why do so many Christian Churches renounce sinners and refuse to allow them to be part of their Church of Christ?

Shouldn't they be welcoming sinners above all others as Jesus did?

[Divine Insight]

To begin with, there is no misunderstanding. The OT is filled with reasons why we should stone people to death. It's not like this was some vague isolated or misunderstood directive.

In fact, according to the New Testament Gospels the Jews were indeed obeying this very commandment to stone people. They must have been doing this quite often if Jesus just happened to come by a mob preparing to stone a woman to death for adulterer. Where do you think they got the idea to do that?

Ok, why they didnt do it, if they had right for that and it was something that they must do?

Well clearly they were doing it if Jesus happened upon a mob that was doing it.

If you are asking why they didn't finish stoning this particular woman to death and instead accepted Jesus' argument that they shouldn't cast the first stone unless they are without sin, it's hard to say.

I can offer quite many reasons.

1. The story of Jesus at the well never truly took place and was never anything more than a parable for this religious propaganda in an effort to try to make a point. A point that is actually contradictory to the Old Testament I might add. Where in the Old Testament does it say that only people who are totally free of sin are to stone others to death? In fact, this also implies that if that is the RULE then the God of the Old Testament must have been assuming that most people are actually totally free of any and all sin.

This whole story makes no sense even as a parable.

2. Another possible explanation for why Jesus was able to deter this particular mob is to simply suggest that the mobsters themselves were disorganized morons who were easily confused by someone like Jesus who was simply more intelligent than they are. I've actually seen this sort of thing happen in real life where a mob of idiots were totally overwhelmed by someone who steps in and has intelligent things to say. Morons quickly become passive and have no clue how to handle people who have intelligence superior to theirs.

I think this also makes sense considering that the mob was indeed most likely made up of morons in the first place. I doubt that intelligent people were going around stoning people to death. That's the behavior of morons to begin with.

And secondly, there's no excuse for the original directives and commandments of an omniscient omnipotent God to have every been misunderstood. For that to happen could only be because the God himself was not clear originally, or because this God has allowed his very own "Holy Texts" to become corrupt.

In my opinion the scriptures are clear and good. The problem is that people dont want to understand. And if person dont want to understand, it does not really matter what is said, because that person makes all possible excuses to not believe.

Well this is clearly an opinionated accusation being made by your toward anyone who doesn't believe in these absurd and disgusting fables.

In fact, it's actually a direct accusation and insult toward anyone who has actually studied these scriptures in depth trying to make them work only to discover that it's impossible. And that has indeed been my life's experience.

I have tried to make these stupid scripture work in countless ways. I have bent over backwards metaphorically to the point where I literally had to shove my head up my posterior and pretend that I couldn't see the blatant contradictions that were clearly staring me in the face.

I have come to the conclusion that there is simply no way that the scriptures can be justified. And I have yet to meet anyone who can justify these scriptures without extreme contradiction or denial of what the scriptures actually have to say.

~~~~~

In fact, going back to the topic we were just discussing. Does God want us to judge other people and stone sinners to death or not?

The Old Testament says yes. Not only does God command that we are to do this, but he even demands it and states clearly that we are not to take pity on these sinners. We are to do this for the purpose of "removing the evil from amongst us".

There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that the people who are to do that stoning must be free of sin. In fact, in Christianity that would be impossible anyway because according to Christianity no human has ever been sin free save for Jesus who supposedly wasn't even human.

Yes here we have Jesus rebuking the laws of the Old Testament and demanding that only those who are without sin cast the first stone. But in Christianity that would require that no one must ever stone anyone to death because all men have sinned.

~~~~~~

So here's the contradiction.

Does God want us to stone sinners to death or not?

The God of the Old Testament says "YES!" We are to do this to put evil away from amongst us.

Jesus says, "NO!" We are not to cast the first stone because only people who are free of sin are to do this (would would be nobody). And Jesus also rejects the notion that we are to put evil away from amongst us. On the contrary Jesus peaches that we should not resist evil but allow it to exist in our midst and simply turn our other cheek to it.

If you can't see these extreme contradictions then I hold that you are the one who is in denial. Not those of us who recognize the absurdities of these ancient myths.

~~~~

And finally in order for your apologetic claim, that people who reject Christianity are only doing so because they are making excuses to not believe, to hold water, then all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, are ALL just making excuses to reject Christianity.

I make no apology to you when I say that this sort of apologetic argument is the lamest of them all.

Clearly these fables are inconsistent and highly self-contradictory. And I've demonstrated that here on the topic of stoning sinners to death. There can be no doubt that the stories between the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament are incompatible claims.

At best these would be extremely confusing and contradictory MIXED MESSAGES from a God. Are we to stone sinners to death or not? Jesus says not, but he also claims that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot and tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. But the jots and tittle say that we are to stone sinners to death.

At the very least this would be an extremely confusing MIXED MESSAGE from our creator.

I hold that it's simply one of many examples of blatant contradictions that exist all throughout these ancient rumors and fables thus revealing them to be nothing more than very poorly thought-out superstitious myths.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Who Represents Christianty?

Jesus.

The rest just do the best they can.

Why should a Christian church turn away sinners?

Anecdotal data, presented solely on how much trust y'all's willin' to put in me, but I swear on a honey biscuit...


The first church I built was a sanctuary addition to the more normal lookin' part there. Well don't it beat all, it caught fire after we tried to fix us the new roof to the one that already was a roof. Who coulda thunk, in that long ago age, that smoke was an indicator of fire? I mean, before smoke set you frettin' on if you have paper enough to finish the bag?

I didn't tell the rest of it.... Then, after it got put out, well danged if they didn't hafta do it again, for it seems they only thought they did the first time there (see data concerning rollin' paper).

So there it is, some data to suggest that if you have you a sinner building you a church, well fire might be the result.

Conclusions?

I reject the notion that love of god is superior to love of human.

But can't deny that this sinner once built him a church, and had to build back up the burned down part.

[1213]

Well clearly they were doing it if Jesus happened upon a mob that was doing it.

For those who may be interested about truth, I want to show how the story went:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

John 8:3-8

And I have yet to meet anyone who can justify these scriptures without extreme contradiction or denial of what the scriptures actually have to say.

I dont think you really understand what those scriptures actually mean, when you have these contradiction problems. So how can you say that someone is in denial, if he dont see same way as you?

In fact, going back to the topic we were just discussing. Does God want us to judge other people and stone sinners to death or not?

Firstly, the Law of Moses was given to Jews. If you want to know are you allowed to stone people according to the rules that were given to the judges, you should first answer are you a Jew. If not, then I dont know how you could have their judges rights.

In generally I would say that God wants us to do same to others that we want to be done to us.

Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matt. 7:12

So, if you want to stone sinners, do so, if you want to be stoned for sin also.

According to the Bible Law is fulfilled by this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that the people who are to do that stoning must be free of sin.

Maybe so, but it says:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

So, those who want to judge, should be righteous in that. Righteous person can see more than stones.

Yes here we have Jesus rebuking the laws of the Old Testament and demanding that only those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Judge should have been righteous and righteous is defined by this:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[Divine Insight]

Well clearly they were doing it if Jesus happened upon a mob that was doing it.

For those who may be interested about truth, I want to show how the story went:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

John 8:3-8

And for those who are interested in truth this story is still absurd. I've had this argument with apologists time and time again. Actually the argument that these men at the well were actually the Jewish Chief Priests is who arranged this whole charade just as ploy to trap Jesus is even more absurd than the ignorant mob apologetics.

The idea that the Chief Priests went around stoning people to death on the streets can't be more absurd.

Also, even if we accept this account by John these Priests themselves were then utterly stupid not to confront Jesus on what he means by those without sin are to cast the first stone. Where can Jesus justify this from Old Testament scriptures? He can't. Moreover this would require that there are indeed human men who are without sin, otherwise it would have made no sense for the original God to have given men this directive in the first place.

So it doesn't pan out in any case 1213. The story is obviously a farce.

Who are this "Sinless Judges" that would have been commanded to stone sinners to death?

That's what Jesus should have been asked in these absurd stories. Have you ever noticed that these stories never ask Jesus the tough questions. On the contrary they always make out like Jesus outsmarted the stupid Chief Priest every time. But the problem is that these fables never make any sense.

Does this God want men to stone sinners to death or not? That's the question.

According to the Old Testament he does. According to Jesus he doesn't.

That's a contradiction. I don't care how many lame apologetic excuses you try to pull out of a hate.

In fact, for me personally this is a huge issue. Because when I study the Bible I start from the Beginning which is the only way it can possibly make any sense. And I see this God commanding men to judge each other and to stone sinners to death for the purpose of removing the evil from among them. (at least he gives a reason for this).

But even that makes absolutely no sense. Why would an omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of every man and could rid the world of sinners efficiently by simply giving them preemptive heart attacks before they even carry out their crimes, instead turn this task over to mortal men who have no clue what's in the hearts and minds of men and could never nip anything in the bud.

They would also be prone to condemning to death innocent people as we well know happens in human criminal justice systems.

So before we even get to Jesus this religion is already asinine. This Old Testament God is already an idiot.

But then Jesus rebukes the stoning to death of sinners, (supposedly even when the Chief Priest are the ones who are doing it). And they would be the ones who are supposed to do it. Not judges elected by men.

Jesus not only rebukes the stoning to death of sinners, but he even rebukes the very reason that they should be stoned to death in the first place. Jesus says not to resist evil but instead to turn the other cheek to it. So according to Jesus we aren't supposed to put away the evil from among us but instead we're supposed to live side-by-side with these active sinners.

So no amount of apology can salvage this train-wrecked mythology. It's was a very poorly constructed mythology from the get go and even the legends of the demigod Jesus can't save it.

I dont think you really understand what those scriptures actually mean, when you have these contradiction problems. So how can you say that someone is in denial, if he dont see same way as you?

I don't really care what you think. These collections of fables can never be made to be consistent. They were absurd from the get go and fables of Jesus can't save them.

Firstly, the Law of Moses was given to Jews. If you want to know are you allowed to stone people according to the rules that were given to the judges, you should first answer are you a Jew. If not, then I dont know how you could have their judges rights.

This is another utterly absurd apology.

If you're going to use the excuse that if I'm not a Jew than the Old Testament Laws don't apply to me then all you are telling me it that the whole stupid religion doesn't apply to me including the fables of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew too, have you forgotten that?

In generally I would say that God wants us to do same to others that we want to be done to us.

Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matt. 7:12

But here you are quoting words attributed to Jesus by Matthew and claiming that this is from "GOD".

But why should anyone believe that Jesus speaks for God?

If you're going to claim to be quoting directives from God you need to be quoting from the Old Testament not from Jesus.

So, if you want to stone sinners, do so, if you want to be stoned for sin also.

I have absolutely no desire to stone anyone to death. In fact, I always like to point out that in Christianity Jesus FREED me from that horrible directive of the original God.

My first thought when I read this was "Thank you Jesus for telling that old nasty God of the Old Testament to go jump in the lake".

But that's when I realized the oxymoron of Jesus supposedly being the son of this very same God and also claiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

I may LIKE the teachings of Jesus over the teachings of the Old Testament God, but that doesn't do anything toward eliminating the contradictions. On the contrary it actually highlights the contradictions.

According to the Bible Law is fulfilled by this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

I didn't see anything in there about believing that Jesus was the Son of God, or worshiping Christianity.

According to Roman 13:8 everyone can easily fulfill the "Biblical Law" without even believing in a God at all. So not only can all non-Christians fulfill that law but so can atheists.

So atheism can totally satisfy the Biblical Law. In fact I didn't see anything in there about homosexuality either, so evidently that's not against biblical law either then.

There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that the people who are to do that stoning must be free of sin.

Maybe so, but it says: {snip}

I don't care what else it says. My point has been made. There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that people who are to do the stoning must be free of sin.

Therefore Jesus was totally out of line proclaiming that this should be a criteria. Especially if it's so important. And if it was that important then why wasn't it mentioned in the OT?

The reason it wasn't mentioned in the OT is because these myths are nothing more than the made up rumors of a superstitious society. Clearly if there was a supreme being behind it things of this level of importance would not have been overlooked.

In fact, how could this God or Jesus expect anyone to know any better if Gods original testament was so lame and lacking in important details.

If the original God had any intelligence at all, then Jesus shouldn't have even been required to stop by to fix a failed testament in the first place.

The whole religion is absurd from the get go. There is no way of salvaging it. And I can't even imagine why anyone should even want to try to be perfectly honest with you.

Why are you so anxious to support a mythology that holds you responsible for the brutal crucifixion of God's innocent son?

I don't understand why anyone finds that to be worth defending.

[Divine Insight]

"They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of."

By the way, if it was their purpose to catch him in trap they had succeeded but were evidently too stupid to realize it.

Either that or these fables were made up specifically take make out like these Chief Priests were indeed stupid. I personally believe this latter motivation to be more likely the truth.

[1213]

Where can Jesus justify this from Old Testament scriptures?...I don't care what else it says. My point has been made. There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that people who are to do the stoning must be free of sin...

It is said judge righteously. Only righteous judge can do so and righteous is opposite for sinner. Therefore, only sinless person could judge.

I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Does this God want men to stone sinners to death or not? That's the question.

According to the Old Testament he does. According to Jesus he doesn't.

God wants us to be righteous. In some cases it may be so that righteous person must give death penalty. However righteous person must also obey this:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9

I think forgiveness is not forbidden.

But even that makes absolutely no sense. Why would an omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of every man and could rid the world of sinners efficiently by simply giving them preemptive heart attacks before they even carry out their crimes, instead turn this task over to mortal men who have no clue what's in the hearts and minds of men and could never nip anything in the bud.

People wanted to know good and evil like God. I think that is the reason why God allows evil people also live in this world.

If you're going to claim to be quoting directives from God you need to be quoting from the Old Testament not from Jesus.

Jesus said what God had commanded him to say.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Why are you so anxious to support a mythology that holds you responsible for the brutal crucifixion of God's innocent son?

I dont see any reason to think that Bible holds me responsible for crucifixion.

[Divine Insight]

It is said judge righteously. Only righteous judge can do so and righteous is opposite for sinner. Therefore, only sinless person could judge.

In that case then the original commandment that any mortal man should ever stone anyone to death is an oxymoron. Why would a God have ever commanded mortal men, all of whom are sinners to judge anyone?

That was my original complaint.

If we're going to accept your apology then we must necessarily accept that all mortal humans are not sinners. And therefore Jesus was not the only one who was sinless. But that flies in the face of many Christian apologists including the apostle Paul who clearly claimed that all mortal men are sinners.

I dont see any reason to think that Bible holds me responsible for crucifixion.

In that case then you can't claim that Jesus died to pay for your sin. And therefore Jesus cannot be your "savior" since you renounce any responsibility for the death of Jesus as your "savior".

I don't know what faction of Christianity you believe in, but clearly it's not orthodox Christianity.

Actually I might be in agreement with your version of these fairytales.

If you claim that all men are not sinners, and that some men are righteous on their own merit, and that there is no need to believe that everyone must confess responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, then that's a Christianity I would be willing to support to some degree.

However, even given those allowances there are still extreme problems with the religion concerning the Old Testament behavior of God. His reaction to the fall from grace being a paramount issue right there.

[1213]

If we're going to accept your apology then we must necessarily accept that all mortal humans are not sinners. And therefore Jesus was not the only one who was sinless. But that flies in the face of many Christian apologists including the apostle Paul who clearly claimed that all mortal men are sinners.

I think it is misunderstanding, if people think that no man is/was righteous, because of these scriptures.

When Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do. But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Matt. 9:12-13

By faith, Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had testimony given to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness with respect to his gifts; and through it he, being dead, still speaks.
Heb. 11:4

Yahweh, don't rebuke me in your anger, Neither discipline me in your wrath.
Psalm 5:13

The wicked watches the righteous, And seeks to kill him.
Psalm 37:32

But, sinner and righteous may have different meanings. According to the Bible it is possible that even righteous person makes mistakes. The difference is that righteous regrets, when he knows that he have done wrongly.

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises up again; But the wicked are overthrown by calamity.
Pro. 24:16

I dont see any reason to think that Bible holds me responsible for crucifixion.

In that case then you can't claim that Jesus died to pay for your sin. And therefore Jesus cannot be your "savior" since you renounce any responsibility for the death of Jesus as your "savior".

Jesus died, because people wanted to kill him. I was not there and I didnt kill him and according to the Bible he had right to forgive even before his death.

However I believe Jesus came also for me and because of that he suffered a lot. I think he did it also for me, but I dont know how that could be my fault, when I didnt ask it and I didnt do it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Who Represents Christianity?

I have a different take on the OP title question. Below is a list of people who do represent or have represented Christianity (perhaps not always positively). Anyone unfamiliar with the names can find abundant information with an Internet search.

Pat Robertson
Ted Haggard
Jim Bakker
John Geoghan
Paul R Shanley
Jimmy Swaggart
Cardinal Bernard Law
Robert Tilton
Warren Jeffs
Pedophile priests

[Divine Insight]

However I believe Jesus came also for me and because of that he suffered a lot. I think he did it also for me, but I dont know how that could be my fault, when I didnt ask it and I didnt do it.

The problem is that if you condone Jesus having suffered anything on your behalf then that's the same as asking him to do it.

Why? Because God is supposedly omniscient. If no one would accept penal substitution then there would be no reason for God to have ever sent Jesus in the first place.

God is timeless. Therefore for you to accept penal substitution after the fact is no different from accepting it before it happens.

If no one would accept penal substitution then it would make Jesus moot.

Only your acceptance of penal substitution can give Jesus any meaning.

It's also a bit hypocritical to say, "Sure I accept the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for my sins, but don't ask me to crucify him."

What?

Hey, if you aren't willing to pick up the hammer and spikes and nail Jesus to the pole yourself then you reject the crucifixion of Jesus and refuse to have anything to do with it. Proclaiming that you accept him as your savior whilst simultaneously renouncing what it takes to be your savior is hypocritical.

In fact many clergy actually realize this. When asked, "If you had been there would you have done anything to stop the crucifixion of Jesus?" Many of them have openly stated that they would not have done anything to interfere with the crucifixion of Jesus, because without that act they could not be saved.

I don't think people realize that it really makes no sense at all to condemn the crucifixion of Jesus whilst simultaneously claiming that they accept this on their behalf.

It's like saying, "Hey as long as someone else nails him to the pole I'll grab up on the free gift of eternal life, but don't ask me to be responsible for nailing him to the pole."

Many Christians realize that the whole point is that they are indeed to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus. Their sins are the reason he supposedly had to be crucified. So in this way they are responsible for his crucifixion.

What you seem to be saying is "Hey I want no parts of the crucifixion of Christ, but I'll take the free tickets to Disneyland!"

I think a lot of people would be "Christians" if they thought they could pull that stunt.

But I will agree with you about one thing. There are passages in the New Testament that clearly imply that Jesus himself believed that there are righteous people who do not need a spiritual physician, and therefore they don't need Jesus at all.

But most Christians passionately reject that notion. They can't allow for anyone to not need Jesus.

There are also passages where Jesus claims that it's not important to believe in him or in his words. But once again, most Christians passionately reject those verses arguing venomously that no one can get to the father who does not believe in Jesus. So they renounce these passages.

I'm sure there are "Christian denominations" that believe that people neither need to be saved by Jesus nor even believe in Jesus, but they are a minority for sure.

I mean, if you are a Christian who is willing to believe that there exist sinless people who neither need to believe in Jesus nor in his words, then you should have no problem with me. Because that would be my stance. I don't need Jesus nor do I need to believe in his words. I'm "saved" on my own righteousness just as Jesus had suggested.

So there is no need for me to become a "Christian". Christianity is for sinners.