RE: Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.
September 22, 2014 at 4:33 pm
(This post was last modified: September 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm by Michael B.)
The problem with that question Rhythm is that for the Christian it's counter-factual. I think, like history, we have enough challenges making best sense of what did happen rather than what didn't. But without our Lord's Passion I think the moral influence would be significantly weakened: as it was, he lived out his verbal teaching 'do not resist evil' in a way that leaves little doubt he meant what he taught. So to die for Christ has always been seen as noble, whereas to kill for Christ has had an ignoble history.
The Church has taken the question of whether we must necessarily need Christ seriously. Pelagius, for example, argued that we could respond to being told the law of God, but that we don't. But, the consideration was that experience (both our own, and the experiences revealed in scripture) tells us we can't always choose good (though the Eastern Church were and are still more open to the possibility).
The Church has taken the question of whether we must necessarily need Christ seriously. Pelagius, for example, argued that we could respond to being told the law of God, but that we don't. But, the consideration was that experience (both our own, and the experiences revealed in scripture) tells us we can't always choose good (though the Eastern Church were and are still more open to the possibility).