Just Who Is a Christian? April 2001

I spoke to an Anglican worshiper early in the year of2001, and I want to focus on this issue. Since I first meet this lady I am discovering more and more that most Christian are not Christian's after all, they only think they are. For want of a better word they are church attendees only, or you could say pew warmers with very limited knowledge of the bible. To most of them the church is no more than a social club and a place to gossip. They are for want of a better word, cafeteria type Christians. In other words they select only what they want.

I had discussions with this middle-aged female Anglican worshiper a few months ago ago now, whom visited our home one day in February 01. I shared with her that my wife and I no longer believed in God or Jesus after doing some serious research into religions. She then informed us that she still believed in a God but she stated that her and her Christian friends thought that the bible was a book of myths.

How can someone be a Christian if they have no belief in the bible? Just how many supposed Christians are there who think like this? Is calling yourself a Christian some sort of ego trip? The mere fact that they think that the bible is a book of myths throws some very serious doubt on what they actually do believe.

If Adam and Eve are considered myth what happens to the "Original sin" that we are all supposed to be contaminated with. Christians who believe that this is a myth cannot call themselves a true Christian, because if there is no Original sin then there is no need for a redeemer ( supposedly born of a virgin, so as to be sinless) by the name of Jesus some 4000 years later, (Why it took so long is anybody's guess) when he was crucified to save us.

It becomes extremely important for the Christian believer to believe the Genesis account of the Adam and Eve story and the original sin. According to the teachings of Christianity. "All people are contaminated with this original sin" of Adam, being tempted by Eve to taste the forbidden fruit. That makes "everybody" contaminated by sin regardless of his or her belief or unbelief, as taught by the church. If our contamination was by the sin of Adam and Eve regardless of our consent or belief, then to set the equation to equally balance, shouldn’t Jesus redemption be passive? By this I mean, shouldn't his sacrifice cancel out all sin whether we consent or not, and whether we believe or not?

To come up with a different argument or excuse, is to say that God condemned us unconditionally and made redemption conditional. Christian quite often quote that God is no respecter of persons.

The implication of this Christian argument is that Adam's Original sin was superior to Jesus' sacrifice, because Adam’s sin condemned all of us, where as Jesus only saved some of us according to the teachings of the church.

Question. Wasn't Jesus death greater than Adam's mistake? If the crucifixion and supposed resurrection triumphed over the Original sin than the debt for all sin is paid for all time, regardless of our consent, regardless of our belief, and regardless of our faith. If there is no need to be a believer to inherit Adam's sinful nature then there is no need to be a believer to be redeemed. Either Jesus paid the price for all sin for all time or he didn't. To say that only those who accept Jesus as being redeemed is in contradiction.

Poser. Why would a just and perfect god hold an innocent person responsible for the sin that was committed by some one else?

Jim Lee.