PDA

View Full Version : Definition of Christian



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

RNHC
March 18th, 2016, 04:23 PM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

jar
March 18th, 2016, 04:55 PM
Actually I have had a thread that's so far been running for twelve years on "What is Christianity." and so far no one answer has emerged. Instead what has been presented has been quite a few different definition with many claiming to be the "True Christianity¸™".

What ever it is, it's pretty clear that Jesus if Jesus actually existed was not a Christian but rather a nice Jewish boy.

As a cradle Creedal Christian I find the subject fascinating and the assumptions simply mindblowing. An example is the assumption that there is such a thing as "The Bible™" when in fact there are a whole host of different Canons, the shortest including only the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, and excluding the rest of the Tanakh and all of the New Testament. Their reasoning (and it seems valid) is that as Christians the basis should be those books canonized while Jesus lived. Another of the oldest Christian traditions and churches actually has two Canons, a long and short Canon with the long canon including over 80 books.

A second common but amazing belief seems to be that "The Bible™" is only one book and not an anthology of anthologies written by mostly unknown authors over uncounted periods of time edited by unknown editors and still later redacted and translated and edited yet again, often for social and political reasons instead of theological ones.

After all, the various creeds were also trying to define Christianity which may explain why we have so many different creeds.

checkrail
March 18th, 2016, 06:05 PM
There are some simplicities in fields of complexity. In the doctrines of all the major branches of Christianity for all their dfferences, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Episcopalianism and (in most larger denominations) Protestantism all share the belief that God is a Trinity of three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost and that Jesus is the second Person incarnated and therefore divine. One can obviously assent or dissent: that is the belief of the bodies to which the vast majority of Christians belong.

jar
March 18th, 2016, 06:28 PM
There are some simplicities in fields of complexity. In the doctrines of all the major branches of Christianity for all their dfferences, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Episcopalianism and (in most larger denominations) Protestantism all share the belief that God is a Trinity of three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost and that Jesus is the second Person incarnated and therefore divine. One can obviously assent or dissent: that is the belief of the bodies to which the vast majority of Christians belong.

That is one way to box Christianity; into two groups, the Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians and so a possible definition might be Christians believe in a divine (kinda because even there there are further differing definitions) and can be Trinitarians or Non-Trinitarians.

checkrail
March 18th, 2016, 06:37 PM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

jar
March 18th, 2016, 06:51 PM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

checkrail
March 19th, 2016, 04:08 AM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

Most theologians and believers have looked at the Christian message and have located themselves in Trinitarian bodies which gives that doctrine a certain authority. It is obviously a matter for one's own judgment whether that kind of majoritarian argument carrries weight.
What is quite certain is that Jesus cannot be the Son of God and not Son of God; the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views cannot both valid. But as to who decides who is correct, I reckon the individual has to decide for him-/herself based on his/her evaluation of the evidence.

To the OP:
Sorry. I have not directly addressed your question previously. If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

jar
March 19th, 2016, 06:04 AM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

Most theologians and believers have looked at the Christian message and have located themselves in Trinitarian bodies which gives that doctrine a certain authority. It is obviously a matter for one's own judgment whether that kind of majoritarian argument carrries weight.
What is quite certain is that Jesus cannot be the Son of God and not Son of God; the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views cannot both valid. But as to who decides who is correct, I reckon the individual has to decide for him-/herself based on his/her evaluation of the evidence.

To the OP:
Sorry. I have not directly addressed your question previously. If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

Understanding of the Trinity can take many forms.

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

There is also the position that Jesus was fully and only human while alive and living among us but became divine with the ascension.

Personally, I believe if Jesus was not simply human while alive and on earth then I think the message of resurrection and a life after death is greatly diminished.

checkrail
March 19th, 2016, 07:00 AM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

Most theologians and believers have looked at the Christian message and have located themselves in Trinitarian bodies which gives that doctrine a certain authority. It is obviously a matter for one's own judgment whether that kind of majoritarian argument carrries weight.
What is quite certain is that Jesus cannot be the Son of God and not Son of God; the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views cannot both valid. But as to who decides who is correct, I reckon the individual has to decide for him-/herself based on his/her evaluation of the evidence.

To the OP:
Sorry. I have not directly addressed your question previously. If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

Understanding of the Trinity can take many forms.

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

There is also the position that Jesus was fully and only human while alive and living among us but became divine with the ascension.

Personally, I believe if Jesus was not simply human while alive and on earth then I think the message of resurrection and a life after death is greatly diminished.

Thank you for underlining my view that we each take our own decision on such things.

jar
March 19th, 2016, 07:07 AM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

Most theologians and believers have looked at the Christian message and have located themselves in Trinitarian bodies which gives that doctrine a certain authority. It is obviously a matter for one's own judgment whether that kind of majoritarian argument carrries weight.
What is quite certain is that Jesus cannot be the Son of God and not Son of God; the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views cannot both valid. But as to who decides who is correct, I reckon the individual has to decide for him-/herself based on his/her evaluation of the evidence.

To the OP:
Sorry. I have not directly addressed your question previously. If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

Understanding of the Trinity can take many forms.

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

There is also the position that Jesus was fully and only human while alive and living among us but became divine with the ascension.

Personally, I believe if Jesus was not simply human while alive and on earth then I think the message of resurrection and a life after death is greatly diminished.

Thank you for underlining my view that we each take our own decision on such things.

As I mentioned above, I've had a thread that's been running for over 12 years now and so far that is the only possible conclusion. Other than a belief that Jesus existed and a self identification as a Christian there appears to be no universal definition of what is Christianity.

Flounder
March 19th, 2016, 05:57 PM
Wait wait I think I know this one, it's Arianism isn't it?

stub
March 20th, 2016, 08:22 AM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?


A deist

jar
March 20th, 2016, 08:49 AM
Wait wait I think I know this one, it's Arianism isn't it?

There are other possibilities.

One involves the term "incarnate" which carries a meaning beyond simply sharing or appearing as but rather becoming fully and completely.

In this version of Christianity the Sacrifice is not Jesus death (after all his death was not unusual, in fact two others died the same way the same day at the same location) but rather God becoming just man, the creator of all that is reduced to an infant, unable to focus his eyes, feed himself, control his bowels, talk, understand, walk or even crawl. It is God becoming man to experience what being man is, to teach, to show by example, to live and to eventually die. In this version Jesus while on the Earth is fully and completely human.

Before Jesus birth and after the ascension Jesus may well be divine and in this version of Christianity members believe that before birth and after ascension Jesus is divine.

This version does not make God look as utterly stupid as the blood sacrifice version.

Morgaine
March 21st, 2016, 11:38 AM
I wonder if some people are a little disillusioned with The Bible. I ran into an argument elsewhere about Deuteronomy and someone seemed to defend things in it saying it was the civil law of the land. Some verses seem to have barbaric punishments/consequences (You must purge the evil from among you - seems to apply to sex before marriage, adultery, worshippers of other gods), yet if these were carried out in this day and age... you'd end up in prison. Perhaps The Bible should be revised for this period in time.

There was a "prank" video I think in The Netherlands (might have been Denmark) - the comedians wrapped up a Bible in a Qu'ran cover and went round reading it out to people, some of the more questionable in this day and age parts. Some were utterly shocked at the end on finding out it was the Bible and not the Qu'ran.

dneal
March 21st, 2016, 08:02 PM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

A Unitarian (in the original sense of the term, before Unitarian Universalism and other digressions).

Empty_of_Clouds
March 22nd, 2016, 12:57 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

dneal
March 22nd, 2016, 07:33 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Human nature.

Empty_of_Clouds
March 23rd, 2016, 02:28 AM
Perhaps, but in this kind of conversation what purpose is served by creating such definitions?

dneal
March 23rd, 2016, 06:00 AM
Perhaps, but in this kind of conversation what purpose is served by creating such definitions?

The answering of a question posed by the OP.

jar
March 23rd, 2016, 07:02 AM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

Morgaine
March 23rd, 2016, 12:20 PM
Labelling is a way to describe who we are. Who are you? Your name is likely to have been chosen by your parents, not by you. What you are is perhaps not the same as what you want to be due to family, friends, education and society shaping you.

Empty_of_Clouds
March 24th, 2016, 03:10 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.


And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

jar
March 24th, 2016, 03:43 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.


And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

So you assert.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 03:51 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Simple curiosity. It makes absolutely zero difference whichever religionistic label is placed on me since religion plays minimal role in my life. I know enough to know that my "attitude" toward God is not unique and has been thought upon, practiced, organized, etc. etc. I am wondering what that was.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 03:53 PM
And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.
<

Also good as well. It can give a sense of belonging and comfort.

dneal
March 24th, 2016, 03:54 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.


And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 03:55 PM
A deist



A Unitarian (in the original sense of the term, before Unitarian Universalism and other digressions).

What is the difference between these two? For example, is one more secular than the other?

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 04:02 PM
That is one way to box Christianity; into two groups, the Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians...


... a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

My understanding of being a Christian aligns with checkrail. As far as I know, Non-Trinitarian doesn't believe in divinity of Christ, thus, by definition, cannot be called Christian. That's why Non-Trinitarian sects such Socians and Brethrens were deemed heretical and persecuted. In that vein, Unitarians should not be called Christian as well per conventional definition.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 04:14 PM
For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.


The version I grew up with says, "...Jesus Christ, his only Son..." To me, that confers divinity to Jesus so I am not sure where you get that Apostle's Creed does not require Jesus to be divine. On the other hand, the term, "Son of God," can take different meanings depending on whether one interprets it literally or metaphorically. But that's neither here nor there since that term is not used in my version of Apostle's Creed.

jar
March 24th, 2016, 04:45 PM
For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.


The version I grew up with says, "...Jesus Christ, his only Son..." To me, that confers divinity to Jesus so I am not sure where you get that Apostle's Creed does not require Jesus to be divine. On the other hand, the term, "Son of God," can take different meanings depending on whether one interprets it literally or metaphorically. But that's neither here nor there since that term is not used in my version of Apostle's Creed.

The whole Apostles Creed says that Jesus was his son but does not necessarily mean divine. As you say "To me, that confers divinity to Jesus", which acknowledges that it is YOUR interpretation.

The partial quote you included was from a post dealing with the Trinity which is another can of worms. It was also simply a small part of what I posted which I include below.


Understanding of the Trinity can take many forms.

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

There is also the position that Jesus was fully and only human while alive and living among us but became divine with the ascension.

Personally, I believe if Jesus was not simply human while alive and on earth then I think the message of resurrection and a life after death is greatly diminished.

dneal
March 24th, 2016, 05:20 PM
A Unitarian (in the original sense of the term, before Unitarian Universalism and other digressions).

What is the difference between these two? For example, is one more secular than the other?

Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

Empty_of_Clouds
March 24th, 2016, 06:38 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.


And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.



No I wasn't. I was simply leaving out the intervening steps that so often lead from labelling to prejudice. I thought - wrongly as it turns out - that my meaning was self-evident.


I'm just not very good with words. Sorry 'bout that.

dneal
March 24th, 2016, 07:19 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.


And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.



No I wasn't. I was simply leaving out the intervening steps that so often lead from labelling to prejudice. I thought - wrongly as it turns out - that my meaning was self-evident.


I'm just not very good with words. Sorry 'bout that.

No problem, but it's an important distinction. Similarly, it's true that eating leads to obesity; but that shouldn't cause us to stop eating altogether... ;)

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 07:56 PM
The whole Apostles Creed says that Jesus was his son but does not necessarily mean divine. As you say "To me, that confers divinity to Jesus", which acknowledges that it is YOUR interpretation.

The partial quote you included was from a post dealing with the Trinity which is another can of worms...


Point taken. :thumb: Childhood lessons do leave lasting impressions even if I no longer believe in them. :)

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 08:03 PM
Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

I am thinking I resemble the Deist the most. Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers were purported to be Deists so I guess I'm in good company although I thought Deism was extinct. So closest modern equivalent would be Unitarian Universalist? That's interesting. I didn't know there was a distinction between Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 08:10 PM
Wait wait I think I know this one, it's Arianism isn't it?

I had to look this up. Apparently Arianism is another one of many that falls under Non-Trinitarianism.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 08:23 PM
If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

I guess my questioning started when I realized that moral teachings of Christ were not that different from what other major religions espoused - be good, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. I was fascinated to learn that Confucianism and Buddhism (which I think is philosophy, not religion) taught astoundingly similar morals or how to live one's life which led me to believe that there are certain universal core values, morals that transcend race, culture, and age. And that religion was simply a covering or cloth of that universal "truth."

moynihan
March 24th, 2016, 08:30 PM
Interesting. What i observe is that people who tend to believe in a god(s) and that belief is related to Jesus tend to self identify as "Christians".
As a person viewing "Christianity" from the outside, i do categorize it as i do other religions. I define it as any group/doctrine that accepts/includes the key decisions of the First Council of Nicaea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) in 325 AD/ce. That would be what is contained in the original Nicaean Creed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325). I find this useful for my own purposes/study, since it was the time and place that it defined itself, so to speak.
This also provides a nice line separating it from the other Abrahamic religions; the two monotheist ones, (Judaism and Islam), and the much later rekindling of elements of Arianism in the 16th century (see the section Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) ), that exists to this day in a number of the later Arian-Protestant religions (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).

dneal
March 24th, 2016, 08:33 PM
Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

I am thinking I resemble the Deist the most. Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers were purported to be Deists so I guess I'm in good company although I thought Deism was extinct. So closest modern equivalent would be Unitarian Universalist? That's interesting. I didn't know there was a distinction between Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist.

I don't think Deism is extinct, but its not like you're going to find any "Deist Church" around the next block or anywhere in history since rejection of organized religion seems to be a key tenant.

Unitarianism was originally a Christian doctrine, as was Universalism. The American Unitarian Association and Universalist Church merged, and the resulting Unitarian Universalism has become so theologically/philosophically liberal that it doesn't really mean anything other than some nebulous sort of spiritualism.

Emerson (a Unitarian minister at one time) displays the "God or Nature" (a concept originally described by Spinoza) line of thinking in his essays - which is a very deist way of thinking. Confusing, I know... ;)

dneal
March 24th, 2016, 08:40 PM
If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

I guess my questioning started when I realized that moral teachings of Christ were not that different from what other major religions espoused - be good, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. I was fascinated to learn that Confucianism and Buddhism (which I think is philosophy, not religion) taught astoundingly similar morals or how to live one's life which led me to believe that there are certain universal core values, morals that transcend race, culture, and age. And that religion was simply a covering or cloth of that universal "truth."

Read "Jesus Lived in India".


Interesting. What i observe is that people who tend to believe in a god and that belief is related to Jesus tend to self identify as "Christians".
As a person viewing "Christianity" from the outside, i do categorize it as i do other religions. I define it as any group/doctrine that accepts/includes the key decisions of the First Council of Nicaea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) in 325 AD/ce. That would be what is contained in the original Nicaean Creed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325). I find this useful for my own purposes/study, since it was the time and place that it defined itself, so to speak.
This also provides a nice line separating it from the other Abrahamic religions; earlier monotheism (Judiasm) and the later monotheism (Islam), and the much later rekindling of elements of Arianism in the 16th century (see the section Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) ), that exists to this day in a number of the later Abrahamic-Protestant religions (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).

Look up what's now grouped as "the mystery cults" for a glimpse of early christianity that resembles nothing like we see today. Gnosticism is a specific example. Modern Christianity is what remains after all the other groups were declared heretics and either converted or were killed.

RNHC
March 24th, 2016, 09:06 PM
Read "Jesus Lived in India".

Look up what's now grouped as "the mystery cults" for a glimpse of early christianity that resembles nothing like we see today. Gnosticism is a specific example. Modern Christianity is what remains after all the other groups were declared heretics and either converted or were killed.

I read an interesting article/essay on Gnostic Gospels, specifically on Gospel of Thomas. The author proposed that Gospel of Thomas was not included in the New Testaments because Thomas taught that God can be found anywhere and everywhere, especially within oneself (which supposedly resembles Eastern or Asian way of thinking). The early Christian leaders found this threatening because it implied that a formal structure (in both literal and figurative sense) of Church was not needed to be close to God. The author also attributed Thomas's Asian way of thinking to India where he allegedly proselytized and was martyred.

moynihan
March 24th, 2016, 09:53 PM
Deism is interesting and very important in the revolutionary/founding fathers. Deist believe in a single, divine power/god, that created the universe and its "natural laws", then essentially stood back, hands off. Actually, not Christian at all. The Declaration of Independence is loaded with Deist phrases. Nature and nature's God, Divine Providence (the will of the creator embedded into nature at creation), "unalienable" rights (literally not capable of being surrendered or taken away, as they are part of nature/natural law), as opposed to inalienable rights. etc.


Look up what's now grouped as "the mystery cults" for a glimpse of early christianity that resembles nothing like we see today. Gnosticism is a specific example. Modern Christianity is what remains after all the other groups were declared heretics and either converted or were killed.

Yes, the period between 30 AD/CE and the early second century is very interesting on this topic. The so called "Jewish Christians", the first followers (the Ebionim) who believed "Jesus" (Joshua Ben Yosef) to be the long awaited Mashiach; the Church of Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus, Their destruction when the Romans killed of the population of Jerusalem when crushing the first Jewish Revolt in 70 AD/CE. Thus, leaving the Hellenistic Goyim (gentiles) believers to build what would later be called "Christianity".

moynihan
March 24th, 2016, 10:05 PM
Re Asian influences; Modern archaeology unearthed a large Greco-Roman style city at the point a trade route from China was joined by the trade route from the south / arabia (incenses/spices). Herod the Great, the Roman's Ethnarc, had gotten his old buddy Octavian Augustus to fund it as an economic development project (http://www.amazon.com/Herod-King-Jews-Friend-Romans/dp/0800631641). Turns out Nazareth was kind of a suburb of this city, full of the native trades folk, when Jesus later would supposedly live there. Probably a lot more interesting information/ideas flowing through than we used to think.

Scrawler
March 27th, 2016, 10:34 AM
Deism is interesting and very important in the revolutionary/founding fathers. Deist believe in a single, divine power/god, that created the universe and its "natural laws", then essentially stood back, hands off. Actually, not Christian at all. The Declaration of Independence is loaded with Deist phrases. Nature and nature's God, Divine Providence (the will of the creator embedded into nature at creation), "unalienable" rights (literally not capable of being surrendered or taken away, as they are part of nature/natural law), as opposed to inalienable rights. etc.


Look up what's now grouped as "the mystery cults" for a glimpse of early christianity that resembles nothing like we see today. Gnosticism is a specific example. Modern Christianity is what remains after all the other groups were declared heretics and either converted or were killed.

Yes, the period between 30 AD/CE and the early second century is very interesting on this topic. The so called "Jewish Christians", the first followers (the Ebionim) who believed "Jesus" (Joshua Ben Yosef) to be the long awaited Mashiach; the Church of Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus, Their destruction when the Romans killed of the population of Jerusalem when crushing the first Jewish Revolt in 70 AD/CE. Thus, leaving the Hellenistic Goyim (gentiles) believers to build what would later be called "Christianity".

Spinoza has an interesting point of view on this.

moynihan
March 27th, 2016, 11:37 AM
Spinoza has an interesting point of view on this.

He was an interesting fellow. Could you elaborate?

RNHC
March 27th, 2016, 03:35 PM
Spinoza has an interesting point of view on this.

He was an interesting fellow. Could you elaborate?

I second that motion.

erynsouth4
March 29th, 2016, 08:42 AM
I wonder if Christianity has some connection with buddism. Like maybe some founders of buddism met Jesus in Asia.

jar
March 29th, 2016, 10:07 AM
I wonder if Christianity has some connection with buddism. Like maybe some founders of buddism met Jesus in Asia.

There was definitely trade going on between the Middle East and Asia, often through China, and with trade also comes the exchange of ideas, customs and religions. Since Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism had been around for hundreds of years before Christianity and likely came along with the commerce and trade it would not be surprising to find many of the elements being incorporated into the evolving Christianity. There would be little need (and almost no evidence) to support Jesus traveling to Asia (remember Jesus whole ministry only lasted about three years) for influences from other religions to become incorporated into the new evolving post Jesus creation called Christianity.

Flounder
March 29th, 2016, 11:16 AM
There was a degree of correspondence between Byzantium and China before the rise of Islam made the journey too hazardous, and Nestorianism was practised in the Far East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_Stele) for a while too. As Jar says, Buddhism predates Christianity. There was some melding of Buddhist and pagan Hellenic religious statuary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art) for a while, it's quite strange to see.

jar
March 29th, 2016, 05:32 PM
There was a degree of correspondence between Byzantium and China before the rise of Islam made the journey too hazardous, and Nestorianism was practised in the Far East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_Stele) for a while too. As Jar says, Buddhism predates Christianity. There was some melding of Buddhist and pagan Hellenic religious statuary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art) for a while, it's quite strange to see.

Of course Islam only begins around the 7th Century CE and extended all the way into the Indus valley. For most of it's history it was also pretty tolerant of other religions as long as the paid their taxes and obeyed the laws.

Empty_of_Clouds
March 29th, 2016, 05:47 PM
I wonder if Christianity has some connection with buddism. Like maybe some founders of buddism met Jesus in Asia.


Personally I think that some of the more recent religions are selective re-interpretations of earlier ones.

Flounder
March 29th, 2016, 05:59 PM
I wonder if Christianity has some connection with buddism. Like maybe some founders of buddism met Jesus in Asia.


Personally I think that some of the more recent religions are selective re-interpretations of earlier ones.

All NEW and IMPROVED!! TWICE the diety at HALF THE PRICE!!!... or your AFTERLIFE BACK!!*








*your afterlife is at risk if you do not keep up sacrifices.

RNHC
March 30th, 2016, 08:07 AM
All NEW and IMPROVED!! TWICE the diety at HALF THE PRICE!!!... or your AFTERLIFE BACK!!*


That should be THRICE the deity... get it, Trinity, Thrice... Thank you, I'm here all week and don't forget to tip your waiting staff.

moynihan
March 30th, 2016, 06:49 PM
All NEW and IMPROVED!! TWICE the diety at HALF THE PRICE!!!... or your AFTERLIFE BACK!!**your afterlife is at risk if you do not keep up sacrifices.

An ad for the The one true religion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9MP70ODNw) :crazy_pilot:

Flounder
March 31st, 2016, 12:15 PM
All NEW and IMPROVED!! TWICE the diety at HALF THE PRICE!!!... or your AFTERLIFE BACK!!**your afterlife is at risk if you do not keep up sacrifices.

An ad for the The one true religion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9MP70ODNw) :crazy_pilot:

Thanks, but I'll be sticking with Tarvuism. It's so easy to join!!™


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-t7MV-Z6Pc

moynihan
March 31st, 2016, 12:55 PM
Hebbo!
:welcome::laser::)

VertOlive
April 11th, 2016, 09:54 PM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

Er, depending on what you think God is, it could simply make you Jewish or muslim, or one with a mixed bag of beliefs.

If you have said the Nicene Creed, and most Catholics have, you know that it unequivocally defines Jesus as divine. So if you've abandoned that and the other beliefs stated therein, you've left the Church and most denominations behind.

My question for you: why do you ask?

jar
April 12th, 2016, 08:17 AM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

Er, depending on what you think God is, it could simply make you Jewish or muslim, or one with a mixed bag of beliefs.

If you have said the Nicene Creed, and most Catholics have, you know that it unequivocally defines Jesus as divine. So if you've abandoned that and the other beliefs stated therein, you've left the Church and most denominations behind.

My question for you: why do you ask?

The Nicene Creed is a great example of the evolution of Christianity and basic beliefs. It did state that God and Jesus were divine and of one substance, but it originally left out the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not get added in until the later Conference of Constantinople. And even then, the general understanding was more a definition of who each was and what each was than the modern Trinitarian usage. Who each was was Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit and what each was was divine.

RNHC
April 13th, 2016, 06:09 AM
My question for you: why do you ask?

Previously answered in post #24.

RNHC
April 13th, 2016, 06:17 AM
...that exists to this day in a number of the later Arian-Protestant religions (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).

Wait, Mormons and Jehovah's Witness don't believe in divinity of Christ? I did not know that. How interesting.

dneal
April 13th, 2016, 08:34 PM
Spinoza has an interesting point of view on this.

He was an interesting fellow. Could you elaborate?

I've been waiting for Scrawler's reply, and I assume he was commenting on your "Nature and nature's God" paragraph.

Spinoza was indeed an interesting fellow. A Sephardic Jew whose family moved (or fled) to The Netherlands, and was "excommunicated" from Judaism for his writings; he wrote largely on philosophy as distinguished from theology (advocating the former and criticizing the latter). Ethics is the relevant work (and one of his most important), and it's more painful to read than a Platonic dialogue. It is a series of logical propositions and the conclusions derived. Generally he was arguing that "God" isn't an independent entity who created everything, set it into motion, established rules and passes judgement on behavior. Instead, God is everything - hence "God or Nature".

Keeping Spinoza in mind while reading Emerson is particularly enlightening.

Stanford's online Philosophy Encyclopedia has a good summary HERE (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat)

edteach
June 17th, 2016, 06:43 AM
Someone who does not cut your head off if you don't agree with them. Unlike Islam.

Dragonmaster Lou
June 17th, 2016, 07:28 AM
Someone who does not cut your head off if you don't agree with them. Unlike Islam.

Umm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

cajunphil
August 30th, 2016, 09:01 AM
Someone who does not cut your head off if you don't agree with them. Unlike Islam.

You're saying it's a failure to excommunicate?

dfo
October 1st, 2016, 02:45 PM
Though true and sad, the Spanish Inquisition stopped killing people hundreds of years ago.



Someone who does not cut your head off if you don't agree with them. Unlike Islam.

Umm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

TSherbs
October 8th, 2016, 06:26 PM
There is no universally accepted definition of what a "Christian" is. Major denominations don't even agree. And Jesus provided no specific definition.

And excessive verbiage on this matter strikes me as the hissing of the serpent in the garden.

TSherbs
October 8th, 2016, 06:40 PM
Whence comes this desire for labelling?

indeed

dneal
October 8th, 2016, 07:33 PM
There is no universally accepted definition of what a "Christian" is. Major denominations don't even agree. And Jesus provided no specific definition.

And excessive verbiage on this matter strikes me as the hissing of the serpent in the garden.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

Fuzzy_Bear
October 21st, 2016, 05:19 PM
Someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I fail everyday.

Fuzzy_Bear
October 21st, 2016, 05:39 PM
If you go all the way back to our oldest copies, you will find that the translations don't change. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.

jar
October 22nd, 2016, 06:28 AM
If you go all the way back to our oldest copies, you will find that the translations don't change. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Actually the copies do change and that is even true in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls have almost nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, if it were possible to talk to any of the folk that collected those scrolls you would find that the one thing they could all agree on was that Jesus is not the Messiah or the Son of God.

pengeezer
October 23rd, 2016, 02:26 PM
Someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I fail everyday.


We all do--saint and sinner alike--it's just that some of us admit to it and some don't.



John

matteob
January 4th, 2017, 10:08 AM
I am going to be careful here as these threads normally end up with face offs between athiests and Christians and other theists but here goes...

Not preaching to anyone or wanting to get into debate on the divinity of Christ: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel by an athiest turned Christian journalistis a good place for the curious but the definition of Christian is very simple. If you accept Jesus as God incarnate and accept him as your personal Lord, friend and saviour then you are a Christian: a follower of Christ. It all comes down to this. The things that seperate Church denominations are doctrine and dogma :)

This is my position. I am not a Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baltist but a Christian.

dneal
January 4th, 2017, 11:19 AM
I am going to be careful here as these threads normally end up with face offs between athiests and Christians and other theists but here goes...

Not preaching to anyone or wanting to get into debate on the divinity of Christ: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel by an athiest turned Christian journalistis a good place for the curious but the definition of Christian is very simple. If you accept Jesus as God incarnate and accept him as your personal Lord, friend and saviour then you are a Christian: a follower of Christ. It all comes down to this. The things that seperate Church denominations are doctrine and dogma :)

This is my position. I am not a Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baltist but a Christian.

The definition of Christian is not so simple, for the reasons you acknowledge (dispute with trinity doctrine, etc...).

If you don't want to get into a debate on the divinity of Christ, don't make debatable statements.

matteob
January 4th, 2017, 11:22 AM
Those are heresies though. They have always been there. The only authority on Jesus is the Bible for me. The Nicene and Apostolic Creeds are a good answer to the question posed. I'll leave it there as conversations like this go nowhere. You either have faith or you don't.

dneal
January 4th, 2017, 11:32 AM
Those are heresies though. They have always been there. The only authority on Jesus is the Bible for me. The Nicene and Apostolic Creeds are a good answer to the question posed. I'll leave it there as conversations like this go nowhere. You either have faith or you don't.

Those are only heretical to some, and only became heresies when enough like-minded folks declared them as such and started threatening those of differing opinions with death.

As for your last two sentences... it's rather boorish to pop your head in the door, declare yourself to have the correct opinion and then ignore objections as you leave.

p.s.: "faith" has nothing to do with trinitarian doctrine.

matteob
January 4th, 2017, 06:18 PM
Sorry I did not intend to be boorish. I just don't want to get into any quarrels or long drawn out debates. Well I would be happy to but your tone strikes me as a little pugnacious so I think it is best to leave things as they stand. I was merely stating how I define myself as a Christian and how all the Christians I know of various denominations define themselves.

Happy New Year!

dneal
January 5th, 2017, 03:55 AM
Tone does not come across well in forums, and I see how my posts could be read. I think this thread has been very civil, and even educational; but not argumentative.

matteob
January 6th, 2017, 02:24 PM
Well then to answer you I personally have trouble terming groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who say that Christ was a "Godly Man" and not God incarnate ( as well as the earlier Arien (sic?) and Gnostic heresies etc) as Christians because it goes against what Christ taught about himself. To me they are like Muslims who hold Jesus as a Prophet but not as divine. Theologians can argue about this until the cows come home but to me you have believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

dneal
January 6th, 2017, 06:23 PM
I don't recall Jesus claiming to be God. I have difficulty with Pauline doctrine. Somehow Jesus brought a message, but realized he forgot some bits and came back as a ghost to relay them to a madman. He's the equivalent of John Smith, in my book.

"Love one another" wasn't a difficult doctrine.

jar
January 6th, 2017, 06:40 PM
Well then to answer you I personally have trouble terming groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who say that Christ was a "Godly Man" and not God incarnate ( as well as the earlier Arien (sic?) and Gnostic heresies etc) as Christians because it goes against what Christ taught about himself. To me they are like Muslims who hold Jesus as a Prophet but not as divine. Theologians can argue about this until the cows come home but to me you have believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

Except of course that the whole concept of the trinity evolved and is still evolving. In the earliest versions of the Creeds the Holy Spirit was simply missing and for most of the existence of the Trinity concept it was still thought of as three separate individuals; a dualist position revolving around who they were and then what they were.

And of course almost every single one of the thousands of Chapters of Club Christian has their own definition in their Club Chapter ByLaws of what a Christian is.

matteob
January 7th, 2017, 08:41 AM
In answer to dneal about Jesus and being the Son of God Matthew 16.16 when Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ and son of the living God and Jesus replies: "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, fleah and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in Heaven."

John 8.23 too where Jesus claims to be above and not of this world. Ultimately though one cannot come to God, to Jesus through rationality. One has to either earnestly seek, be called, and have Jesus and the Spirit manifest themselves. I have had this, I am lucky and blessed. I don't want to preach but this is my stance.I look to the manifold promises in the Old Testament Torah and see them manifested in Jesus.

These beliefs have seen many Christians die in many cases is the cruelest ways human minds can think of rather than recant their faith. it is good enough for me. To really get to the bottom of the questions you ask though you would need to argue with a theologian which I am not :)

SIR
January 7th, 2017, 12:58 PM
29133

A congregant at one of my local protestant churches made the point, in reference to comparative protestantism, that Jesus was antireligious; so, anyone who aligns themself with any collective belief can't be a 'Christian', right?

matteob
January 8th, 2017, 04:14 AM
Good point I would certainly say Jesus railed against the hypocrisy of the religious establishment and sadly a lot hasn't changed.

dneal
January 8th, 2017, 08:57 AM
In answer to dneal about Jesus and being the Son of God Matthew 16.16 when Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ and son of the living God and Jesus replies: "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, fleah and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in Heaven."

John 8.23 too where Jesus claims to be above and not of this world. Ultimately though one cannot come to God, to Jesus through rationality. One has to either earnestly seek, be called, and have Jesus and the Spirit manifest themselves. I have had this, I am lucky and blessed. I don't want to preach but this is my stance.I look to the manifold promises in the Old Testament Torah and see them manifested in Jesus.

These beliefs have seen many Christians die in many cases is the cruelest ways human minds can think of rather than recant their faith. it is good enough for me. To really get to the bottom of the questions you ask though you would need to argue with a theologian which I am not :)

I said "I don't recall Jesus claiming to be God". Peter declaring him the son of God has nothing to do with it. Jesus didn't advocate trinity doctrine.

matteob
January 9th, 2017, 09:04 AM
Yoihave to look at Jesus' response to Peter , God's response at the transfiguration and many other things. I am guessing you are sceptical and fair enough but for a Christian the Bible is divinely inspired snd the first chapter of John is pretty plain on Trinity. John 8 particulatly v56 where Jesus said 'before Abraham was I am.'

dneal
January 9th, 2017, 06:04 PM
I don't see that as what Jesus was saying. 2 verses earlier, in response to the question 'who do you think you are...'; "Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.""

A Christian is a follower of Jesus' teachings. No one was worried about 'divinely inspired texts', especially Jesus, in the beginning.

Bold2013
January 9th, 2017, 10:08 PM
Sometimes you could miss the whole picture focused on the hard to know, less important details. (Kinda like a Pharisee which I have struggled with a time or two) A verse I read earlier today. Matt 11:25.5 you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to infants.

But to answer the original question. Believe that Christ is the only true God who died for us and came back to life, love him with everything you got, loves others as Christ loved us, bear fruit, and take up your cross daily and follow him.

matteob
January 12th, 2017, 07:43 PM
@dneal Atheists throw this question at Christians all the time. Genesis states we are all God's Children but Jesus is his only son. I am no theologian but reading the Bible (and I have read the whole thing) coupled with prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit convince me of the Trinity. The Gospel writers did not need to spell it out in explicit terms because grace is hiven by the Spirit. Lot's of people can deny the Holy Spirit as well though Jesus says this is a terrible sin. Of course one can go down a totally different argument theologically here: pre destination: are Christians chosen by God before conversion and guided to the inevitable by the Spirit or is it a free decision? These are deep thological questions. This may help

https://www.gci.org/god/3bible

If you really are keen try reading the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas: all 5 volumes and 10,000 pages of it. One of the great Theologians:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17897

Or St Augustine. They can explain better than me.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

@Bold2013 has summed it up well though. I am a humble Christian guided by the Spirit and living by faith.

jar
January 13th, 2017, 05:14 AM
But to answer the original question. Believe that Christ is the only true God who died for us and came back to life, love him with everything you got, loves others as Christ loved us, bear fruit, and take up your cross daily and follow him.

That's one of those passages that got mangled in translation. Jesus did not say "Take up your cross and follow me"; he was talking about sports.

What he really said was "Take up Lacrosse and follow me."

matteob
January 13th, 2017, 06:41 AM
Groan and facepalm Lol

Empty_of_Clouds
January 15th, 2017, 01:24 AM
Never mind.

dneal
January 15th, 2017, 09:19 AM
@dneal Atheists throw this question at Christians all the time. Genesis states we are all God's Children but Jesus is his only son. I am no theologian but reading the Bible (and I have read the whole thing) coupled with prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit convince me of the Trinity. The Gospel writers did not need to spell it out in explicit terms because grace is hiven by the Spirit. Lot's of people can deny the Holy Spirit as well though Jesus says this is a terrible sin. Of course one can go down a totally different argument theologically here: pre destination: are Christians chosen by God before conversion and guided to the inevitable by the Spirit or is it a free decision? These are deep thological questions. This may help

https://www.gci.org/god/3bible

If you really are keen try reading the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas: all 5 volumes and 10,000 pages of it. One of the great Theologians:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17897

Or St Augustine. They can explain better than me.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

@Bold2013 has summed it up well though. I am a humble Christian guided by the Spirit and living by faith.

Ok, as long as you're not implying that I'm an atheist throwing a particular question. I simply do not agree with the doctrine you advocate.

I have a degree in philosophy, and am familiar with Aquinas and Augustine. I would recommend Kierkegaard, his argument that beliefs are not knowledge and that absent empirical evidence one must make a "leap of faith" - accepting a belief as true while acknowledging there is no proof - because that is true piety.

jar
January 15th, 2017, 11:35 AM
Ok, as long as you're not implying that I'm an atheist throwing a particular question. I simply do not agree with the doctrine you advocate.

I have a degree in philosophy, and am familiar with Aquinas and Augustine. I would recommend Kierkegaard, his argument that beliefs are not knowledge and that absent empirical evidence one must make a "leap of faith" - accepting a belief as true while acknowledging there is no proof - because that is true piety.

Back at ST Paul's School for Boys Kierkegaard was one of the authors whose works were required readings in Sacred Studies and English along with Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger as well as Barth, Ibsen and Sartre.

SIR
January 15th, 2017, 01:44 PM
In the simplest terms, my definition of Christian would be one who lives by, attempts to emulate, and is driven by the example of living given by Jesus in his own words and actions.

Reading a book, praying, singing, attending church etc are simply not enough to define one as a Christian.

matteob
January 16th, 2017, 12:21 PM
@dneal I am sorry but belief in the Trinity is absolutelely fundamental to mainstream Christian thought. I am not questioning whether you are a theist or not but I would say that a Christian must believe in the divinity of Christ. The Bible acknowledges God the Father, God the Holy Spirit in explicit terms: the conception of Jesus, Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to the apostles (and us too who believe even today) and for Jesus to command God the Spirit he must have parity. There is of course John 1 is absolutely fundamental for Christians too. The denial of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ is Heresy. I don't try to rationalize on the power of God it is beyond knowing. This is what the Pharisees tried to do and they were put in their place by Jesus.

I think this is a suitable quotation to end my participation here.

"I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Matthew 11 vs 25)

I urge you to take up the Bible and read it with an open mind and maybe, if you believe in God ask him to reveal himself and his truth to you regarding Jesus before you read. I would urge you to read the whole thing maybe over the course of a year. There are plans out there.

God bless.

Mortiana27
January 17th, 2017, 01:14 AM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

The only question I see is "What does that make me?" To that question I'd say, you are a person who believes there is a God. Further categorizing isn't necessary (in my opinion).

As to the non-question subject line of this thread, I'll add that my definition of Christian is simply "follower of Christ". One who has read the Bible's account of his birth, life, and ministry then chooses to live their lives guided by how he lived and what he taught.

dneal
January 17th, 2017, 08:01 AM
@dneal I am sorry but belief in the Trinity is absolutelely fundamental to mainstream Christian thought.

I don't disagree that it is mainstream. That does not make it true. It only makes it popular.


I am not questioning whether you are a theist or not but I would say that a Christian must believe in the divinity of Christ. The Bible acknowledges God the Father, God the Holy Spirit in explicit terms: the conception of Jesus, Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to the apostles (and us too who believe even today) and for Jesus to command God the Spirit he must have parity. There is of course John 1 is absolutely fundamental for Christians too. The denial of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ is Heresy. I don't try to rationalize on the power of God it is beyond knowing. This is what the Pharisees tried to do and they were put in their place by Jesus.

This is the "mainstream" interpretation of the Bible, often contradicted within the Bible. It is a matter of translation, interpretation and specific selection of texts; which history clearly shows. "The Bible" doesn't even have the same amount of books, depending on the denomination.

The OP questioned if trinity doctrine was essential to the definition of "Christian". You think it is, but there has been ample evidence offered throughout the thread to provide a rational conclusion that it isn't. History (or doctrine in this case) is written by the "winners". The bloody history of Christianity evidences this, why other lines of thinking were labeled "heresy" and violently eliminated.

My opposition to Pauline doctrine is summed up in this quote from George Bernard Shaw:

“No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.”


I think this is a suitable quotation to end my participation here.

"I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Matthew 11 vs 25)

I urge you to take up the Bible and read it with an open mind and maybe, if you believe in God ask him to reveal himself and his truth to you regarding Jesus before you read. I would urge you to read the whole thing maybe over the course of a year. There are plans out there.

God bless.

I'll offer a quote as well, although I don't remember if I already posted it in this thread...

“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

Monkey
January 17th, 2017, 09:18 AM
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

Excellent quote.

RNHC
January 17th, 2017, 11:26 AM
In the simplest terms, my definition of Christian would be one who lives by, attempts to emulate, and is driven by the example of living given by Jesus in his own words and actions.


... my definition of Christian is simply "follower of Christ". One who has read the Bible's account of his birth, life, and ministry then chooses to live their lives guided by how he lived and what he taught.

So if I follow and live the basic message, i.e., be good, love, be kind and forgiving, etc., as taught by Jesus in the Bible (which, incidentally, are same as taught by many other religions in the world) but do not believe in divinity of Jesus, I am Christian in your book?

RNHC
January 17th, 2017, 11:36 AM
I am neither a scholar or an academic so I find the discussion in this thread extremely enlightening, brilliant, though-provoking, and awe-inspiring.

But I still have trouble connecting how acceptance of divinity of Jesus Christ is not the core crucial characteristic of being Christian as jar and dneal seem to suggest. Even the term has Christ in it: Christ-ian. If I don't accept Jesus as divine but temporal, isn't that pretty much what Judaism and Islam think about Jesus?

dneal
January 17th, 2017, 04:45 PM
I am neither a scholar or an academic so I find the discussion in this thread extremely enlightening, brilliant, though-provoking, and awe-inspiring.

But I still have trouble connecting how acceptance of divinity of Jesus Christ is not the core crucial characteristic of being Christian as jar and dneal seem to suggest. Even the term has Christ in it: Christ-ian. If I don't accept Jesus as divine but temporal, isn't that pretty much what Judaism and Islam think about Jesus?

I suspect Jews see him as someone who went off the reservation, so to speak; but Islam considers him a great prophet / messenger.

I don't see how "Christian" using the base "Christ" conveys divinity or equivalency to God. "Christ" is just the Greek translation of "Messiah". You have to get into Judaism to define that term, which means "Savior" or "Anointed One". Mainstream Christianity uses "Savior" to mean the savior of our souls, absolving us from sin, etc... but that's not the Jewish meaning. The Savior would re-unite the Tribes, for example; because mainstream Judaism believes everyone goes to be with G-d after they die.

Bold2013
January 17th, 2017, 06:50 PM
Jesus being God is the cornerstone of it all

dneal
January 17th, 2017, 07:12 PM
Jesus being God is the cornerstone of it all

I don't think so. Now what?

Mortiana27
January 18th, 2017, 02:13 AM
So if I follow and live the basic message, i.e., be good, love, be kind and forgiving, etc., as taught by Jesus in the Bible (which, incidentally, are same as taught by many other religions in the world) but do not believe in divinity of Jesus, I am Christian in your book?

I don't have a book to keep track of other people's chosen religional designations. Nor can I ever be qualified to make such a judgement. I guess I'm confused as to what it is you're looking for when you ask others if you are Christian.

RNHC
January 18th, 2017, 10:01 AM
I guess I'm confused as to what it is you're looking for when you ask others if you are Christian.

I wasn't asking that at all. I was simply asking for clarification to your definition of being Christian since there was a debate on the concept of Trinity being the core of being a Christian.

matteob
January 18th, 2017, 01:10 PM
@RNHC You have it exactly right. Both Buddhists, Muslims and Messianic Jews can fall into the catagory of what you suggest. Being a Christian involves a commitment to Christ, Son of God as your Lord and Saviour. It is that simple. Ignore the sophistry of some of the posts here.

I have asked several of my fellow Christians how they would define being a Christian. These are Baptist, Methodist, Catholics and Anglicans. The definition they gave is to "accept you are a sinner, that Jesus died for your sins and that you accept the risen Jesus into your life as your own personal saviour and you will seek to follow him and his teaching and let him into your life". Both Catholics, Protestants (high and evangelical), Baptist,Methodist, United Reformed and Orthodox, Copts and Mormons (calling the Trinity the Godhead) believe in the Trinity.Only Jehovahs Witness and Unitarians (may be a few others) deny the Trinity and yet call themselves Christians. There is nothing about victors here. All the major Christian churches despite other differences hang onto this belief as fundamental to Christianity.

I am not going to enter into any further debate. My faith is steadfast. One can judge my religion as folly: fine. One must live according to their own beliefs and consciences.

bye.

Bold2013
January 18th, 2017, 05:26 PM
Well I can't argue something that isn't truly knowable without divine inspiration but before I respectfully withdraw from circular discussion let me leave you with some scripture that's been on my heart

Matthew 7:14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

7:18-20 A good tree can't produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. So you will recognize them by their fruit.

7:21 not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord! Will enter the kingdoms of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

if anyone wants to pm me for a heart to heart about this feel free too. I may not be the most philosophical mind but I do have some life experiences and if it matters academic experience from attending a bible school for undergrad.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 18th, 2017, 07:42 PM
I don't know if this is a discussion about Christianity, or a discussion by Christians (of all stripes).

From an atheist perspective it could be argued that the definition of Christian should include "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence", and that Christianity is "A system of thought and practice centred on something for which there is no evidence".

I think there can be a big difference between how a Christian may be defined by others, and how a Christian defines themselves.


This is going to get me in lots of trouble, yes?

dneal
January 18th, 2017, 08:00 PM
I am not going to enter into any further debate. My faith is steadfast. One can judge my religion as folly: fine. One must live according to their own beliefs and consciences.

bye.

You keep threatening this, but come back with more confrontational language. "Sophistry"? puhleeze...

This has been a civil, thoughtful discussion. Thumping your bible more and more loudly because you don't like the content is wasting everyone's time. If you were more secure in your belief, perhaps you would try to persuade with thoughtful discussion rather than indignation.

dneal
January 18th, 2017, 09:02 PM
I don't know if this is a discussion about Christianity, or a discussion by Christians (of all stripes).

From an atheist perspective it could be argued that the definition of Christian should include "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence", and that Christianity is "A system of thought and practice centred on something for which there is no evidence".

I think there can be a big difference between how a Christian may be defined by others, and how a Christian defines themselves.


This is going to get me in lots of trouble, yes?

Probably. ;)

It's probably more precise to say that the definition of a religious person is "someone who believes in something for which there is inconclusive evidence". That leads back to Kierkegaard and his leap of faith - which I see as a reasonable position.

Strangely, it's the atheist who has the most logically untenable position. Where the agnostic suspends judgement due to lack of evidence, the true atheist actively denies the existence of the thing they say is unprovable - making an assertion they can't hope to prove.

Schroedinger: There is an invisible cat under my desk.
Agnostic: I don't see any evidence.
Atheist: There is not an invisible cat under your desk.

"Atheists" have assumed the agnostic position over the last couple of decades while retaining the label "atheist" - which I think is even more disingenuous than sticking to the logically weakest position. Now we have to determine if they're a "big-A" or "little-a" atheist, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 18th, 2017, 09:08 PM
Bad choice of labels on my part, but the intent was clear.

Anyway, this may be splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference between "inconclusive evidence" and "no evidence". The first suggests that at least there is some evidence to test. Personally I don't think that is the case with theistic religions.

dneal
January 18th, 2017, 09:14 PM
Bad choice of labels on my part, but the intent was clear.

Anyway, this may be splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference between "inconclusive evidence" and "no evidence". The first suggests that at least there is some evidence to test. Personally I don't think that is the case with theistic religions.

There is rational evidence for God's existence, sometimes using empirical evidence (e.g.: watch is to watchmaker as eye is to God). The "big 3" are the Teleological, Ontological and Cosmological arguments. They are flawed, and therefore inconclusive. But the arguments have been formulated and exist, so it wouldn't be the case that there is "no evidence".

Empty_of_Clouds
January 18th, 2017, 09:54 PM
Edit: I am more than happy to entertain other arguments as long as evidence is supplied. Otherwise I can sit here and make up stuff just like everyone else.

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 06:07 AM
Edit: I am more than happy to entertain other arguments as long as evidence is supplied. Otherwise I can sit here and make up stuff just like everyone else.

I don't know what you're on about. When I use the word "rational", I'm using it in the sense of Descartes (i.e.: Rationalists and Empiricists). The Ontological argument is rational. It is not (to me) convincing or conclusive.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 10:40 AM
Mind is a type of cloud-based quantum computer that arises due to complex interactions of super-positional electrons associated with the brain. While we may lay claim to individuality, the reality is that what we call "our" mind is part of the universal mind. This, in part, explains why we often get a sense of familiarity with people or place or events that we "know" intellectually that we have never encountered. Jung posited the concept of a group or world mind. Quantum physics though was too young to help him realise just how close he had come to a truth.

While this only represents a small and simplified part of my theory, which was also later independently refined and expanded on by Dr Roger Penrose (famous British mathematical physicist), it is a robust argument that explains much of the non-physical function of our brain matter, and speaks directly to the fabric of this universe.

While there is little empirical evidence to support this theory, the rationale is sound.

Is this the kind of thing you mean?

Sorry, as a scientist the terms 'evidence' has a very specific meaning and weight. Similarly, one can conjure up any kind of argument in the absence of evidence, but the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or another does not validate the argument.

I suspect we are talking across terms and meanings.

My bottom line: there is no empirical evidence for god or gods or any other mythical entity. There never has been. There is only the human predilection for creating a story to help explain life in the face of the unknown, give comfort and ease fears.

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 12:00 PM
Mind is a type of cloud-based quantum computer that arises due to complex interactions of super-positional electrons associated with the brain. While we may lay claim to individuality, the reality is that what we call "our" mind is part of the universal mind. This, in part, explains why we often get a sense of familiarity with people or place or events that we "know" intellectually that we have never encountered. Jung posited the concept of a group or world mind. Quantum physics though was too young to help him realise just how close he had come to a truth.

While this only represents a small and simplified part of my theory, which was also later independently refined and expanded on by Dr Roger Penrose (famous British mathematical physicist), it is a robust argument that explains much of the non-physical function of our brain matter, and speaks directly to the fabric of this universe.

While there is little empirical evidence to support this theory, the rationale is sound.

Is this the kind of thing you mean?

Sorry, as a scientist the terms 'evidence' has a very specific meaning and weight. Similarly, one can conjure up any kind of argument in the absence of evidence, but the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or another does not validate the argument.

I suspect we are talking across terms and meanings.

My bottom line: there is no empirical evidence for god or gods or any other mythical entity. There never has been. There is only the human predilection for creating a story to help explain life in the face of the unknown, give comfort and ease fears.

Jung's theory is rational in the classical sense, but I never thought it was very logical, well thought out, or convincing. The Argument from Design is quite clever, and intuitively persuasive to be perfectly honest. I find it the most elegant of the three. Still, I don't accept it as valid or conclusive.

I think trying to force the "scientific" definition of 'evidence' is specious. We're talking about history, theology and philosophy. It is ironic that a Ph.D. in physics, for example, holds a Doctorate in the Philosophy of physics. Rational argument, inductive logic, or simply "thinking" is how scientists connect the dots (or bits of empirical evidence) and formulate theories to test. You're inadvertently dismissing the very process used to get us to where we are now. Heraclitus' metaphysics resemble quantum physics, and he came up with it by just reasoning. We can perhaps cut him a little slack since he didn't have the body of knowledge in the 5th Century B.C. that Neil deGrasse Tyson has the benefit of.

I think religion is reassurance to our psyche as we are aware of our impending death. I also think it is a "final" answer to "why". But if you keep asking "why", even science becomes speculative or rational; and without empirical evidence.

I don't think we are talking across terms and meanings. I think you are trying to turn this into a "proof of god" argument. I think you should start your own thread, if that's what you intend; because those are a waste of time. This thread is a discussion on the Definition of Christian, not whether religion is true or false.

--edit--

p.s. As a self-proclaimed scientist, you seem to forget or ignore that one to the key tenets is that discovering you are wrong is always a possibility.

p.p.s. Quoted for posterity, since you like to change or delete your posts for some reason.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 02:03 PM
I changed my post because I wanted to refine what I was saying. Not for any nefarious purpose.

As for the 'proof of God' thing, please try to understand that when I see the question "What is the definition of a Christian?" I must ask "at what level of abstraction?". It depends on whether you are looking for a popular definition or not. Mine is as stated before, that a Christian (or anyone holding a theistic belief actually) is "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence". It is a basic and accurate description.

I stand by the "no evidence" part because merely thinking something to be true does not beget the fact - tying into your snipe about tenets.

That was all. If you want definitions then please set the limits on what you are asking, because it seems to me that the question that is being responded to in this thread is "How, using the terms and teachings of Christian scripture, does one define a Christian?", and that is a quite different question.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 02:11 PM
Actually, I have other views. It really depends on what I am thinking about, what the context may be, and sometimes whether I have had a satisfactory bowel movement that day. :puke: I consider myself a highly fluid thinker in that respect.

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What more description or definition do you want? Perhaps we could ask if the definition has changed over time? That would be a super duper question in my opinion.


As an aside though, I have met vanishingly few modern Christians who actually follow those teachings closely, alas.

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 04:35 PM
I changed my post because I wanted to refine what I was saying. Not for any nefarious purpose.

As for the 'proof of God' thing, please try to understand that when I see the question "What is the definition of a Christian?" I must ask "at what level of abstraction?". It depends on whether you are looking for a popular definition or not. Mine is as stated before, that a Christian (or anyone holding a theistic belief actually) is "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence". It is a basic and accurate description.

I stand by the "no evidence" part because merely thinking something to be true does not beget the fact - tying into your snipe about tenets.

That was all. If you want definitions then please set the limits on what you are asking, because it seems to me that the question that is being responded to in this thread is "How, using the terms and teachings of Christian scripture, does one define a Christian?", and that is a quite different question.

Ok, but I disagree that there is "no evidence". There is evidence of something. No one knows what that is, ultimately. I think of Bertrand Russell's criticism of the Cosmological, or "first cause" argument. Paraphrasing, he said "if there's anything that doesn't need a cause, it might as well be the universe instead of God". I agree, from an Occam's razor principle; but at that level of abstraction and uncertainty it might as well be God too.

What that "something" is and more importantly why it is, is anyone's guess. Ask Stephen Hawking and you'll ultimately get an answer that he can't prove. Ask Pope Francis and you'll get the Catholic answer, which he can't prove. Ask the Dali Lama... well, you get the point. At some point Science is no less of an "educated guess" as religion. They both are different in how they are selective of their "evidence".

As for what I'm asking... until your post(s) we were discussing exactly how one defines a Christian. It is not quite a different question, it is the question of the thread. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this around, since I pointed this out in my preceding post.


A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I agree.


What more description or definition do you want? Perhaps we could ask if the definition has changed over time? That would be a super duper question in my opinion.

I think jar has done very well in addressing this, and I welcome more. It's been some time since I've read anything about the early history of Christianity, and that was in passing interest. Although I'm familiar, his command of the subject is impressive.

matteob
January 19th, 2017, 04:45 PM
@Dneal I am not Bible thumping I am explaining the basis of my faith which is strong thank you. You have a cheek quite frankly to question it. You have pitched in in a rather arrogant "look how clever I am" manner and tried to pick holes in the definition of a Christian that the major Churches subscribe to.Your whole manner to me has been obnoxious unlike say Empty of Clouds who has been polite and who I could quite happily discuss this with even though we are of different views. I will not debate with someone who clearly has no respect for other people and their beliefs. I was addressing this thread answering the question posed.

@Empty of Clouds: most religious people would agree with your arguments on evidence but there are plenty of top flight scientists such as the Cambridge nuclear physicist John Polkinghorne who is also an ordained Priest. It is where faith comes in: Try his books. I am not going to go into his lengthy rationale here. The two can coexist quite happily though.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 04:57 PM
That's kind of you to say, matteob. Often in such discussions I find it interesting to bandy around and play with ideas and theories. Alas, I am like everyone else and have my biases. For a label 'Buddhist' fits me okay, and so does 'scientist' but also in very large measure does 'dilettante'.

Some subjects are very difficult to discuss... I won't say dispassionately, rather without allowing our passions to cloud our objectivity or reasoning capacity. Again, I am just like everyone else in being prone to this.

dneal has the advantage of having studied philosophy and so can dazzle with quotes and such. I've never studied the subject myself, so there is much that he says that goes straight over my head.

Edit:


@Empty of Clouds: most religious people would agree with your arguments on evidence but there are plenty of top flight scientists such as the Csmbridge nuclear physicist John Polkinghorne who is also an ordained Priest. It is where faith comes in: Try his books. I am not going to go into his lengthy rationale here. The two can coexist quite happily though.

I've worked with many science based academics and medical doctors who are devout followers of one religion or another. It always amazed me that they found no paradox in this, they seemed content, and I never felt the need to debate it with them.

matteob
January 19th, 2017, 05:01 PM
Nor have I but I come from a Law background which is evidence based. I have a lot of time for Buddhism. I study snd practice Buddhist meditation and mindfulness techniques. Will be happy to discuss these things with you in PM. It has got nasty here. I mean one thing though I can't get my head around is the reincarnation, the circle of life etc without any acknowledgement of a creating force: that which those of faith call God. Maybe you can help me there?

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 07:21 PM
@Dneal I am not Bible thumping I am explaining the basis of my faith which is strong thank you. You have a cheek quite frankly to question it. You have pitched in in a rather arrogant "look how clever I am" manner and tried to pick holes in the definition of a Christian that the major Churches subscribe to.Your whole manner to me has been obnoxious unlike say Empty of Clouds who has been polite and who I could quite happily discuss this with even though we are of different views. I will not debate with someone who clearly has no respect for other people and their beliefs. I was addressing this thread answering the question posed.

From my vantage point, you come across as: "this is the right answer, the bible says so, I'm not going to debate it, and if you disagree you're a pharisee or sophist... bye". Re-look your own posts. You can't see that? This thread was civil until you showed up.

Maybe that wasn't your intent. I get that. I type the queen's english, but speak redneck; and realize it comes across a little uptight in a forum. I try to mitigate that with "I think", "It seems to me", "probably" and so forth.

You're also new, but EoC has a habit of popping in a thread, stirring shit and editing or deleting his posts and then leaving for a while. I'm actually interested in what he has to say and would rather he man up, say what he means, and stand by it. The passive aggressive bullshit like "dneal studied philosophy so he can dazzle with quotes" gets tiresome.

EoC - Check this out... Studying philosophy has nothing to do with using quotes. I quoted Twain, for chrissakes, not Nietzsche. The internet is full of quotes, and Google is your friend. Find some you think are dazzling. I simply remember some quotes, maxims, aphorisms, whatever; because they summarize ideas so well and made their impression on me at the time I read them.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming... ;)

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 07:44 PM
You're also new, but EoC has a habit of popping in a thread, stirring shit and editing or deleting his posts and then leaving for a while. I'm actually interested in what he has to say and would rather he man up, say what he means, and stand by it. The passive aggressive bullshit like "dneal studied philosophy so he can dazzle with quotes" gets tiresome.

Well, thanks for the character assassination.

FYI I don't come into any thread with the intention of "stirring shit" as you put it. I engage in the conversation because I have something to say or because I am trying to find something out or learn something, or it's an interesting thread. My fault is in asking questions or making statements in a way that other people find off-putting (offensive is probably a bit strong). There is no agenda for me beyond the discussion. Perhaps there is for you though.

I may leave a thread for a while when it no longer interests me, or has taken a tangent that I don't wish to pursue at that time. There's nothing wrong with that, no rule that says I must post every 3 hours or whatever.

My editing and deleting always revolves around two points: 1. have I said what I meant to say? and 2. have I been unfairly aggressive to someone?

Again this is just common sense. Ascribing any kind of purpose to it other than what I have given is just a projection of how you think I am. It's not based on any reality as you don't know me. The difference between you and me, in this case dneal, is that if you tell me your intention I will take your word for it (for I have no reason not to), but you will not extend the same courtesy to me.

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 07:55 PM
You're also new, but EoC has a habit of popping in a thread, stirring shit and editing or deleting his posts and then leaving for a while. I'm actually interested in what he has to say and would rather he man up, say what he means, and stand by it. The passive aggressive bullshit like "dneal studied philosophy so he can dazzle with quotes" gets tiresome.

Well, thanks for the character assassination.

FYI I don't come into any thread with the intention of "stirring shit" as you put it. I engage in the conversation because I have something to say or because I am trying to find something out or learn something, or it's an interesting thread. My fault is in asking questions or making statements in a way that other people find off-putting (offensive is probably a bit strong). There is no agenda for me beyond the discussion. Perhaps there is for you though.

I may leave a thread for a while when it no longer interests me, or has taken a tangent that I don't wish to pursue at that time. There's nothing wrong with that, no rule that says I must post every 3 hours or whatever.

My editing and deleting always revolves around two points: 1. have I said what I meant to say? and 2. have I been unfairly aggressive to someone?

Again this is just common sense. Ascribing any kind of purpose to it other than what I have given is just a projection of how you think I am. It's not based on any reality as you don't know me. The difference between you and me, in this case dneal, is that if you tell me your intention I will take your word for it (for I have no reason not to), but you will not extend the same courtesy to me.

You're certainly welcome to do and say what you like, as am I.

A really good read is "The History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell. A well written textbook that gives you the gist of a few thousand years of thought, without having to suffer through the original texts. If you've ever read a Platonic dialogue, or Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra"; you'll know how valuable Russell's work is.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 07:59 PM
Yes, but from how you write the first sentence it appears that you do not accept what I say, only my right to say it. That's kind of cheap.

So: Do you want to complain about the taste of the cake, or do you want to complain about how the cake was made?

dneal
January 19th, 2017, 08:25 PM
Yes, but from how you write the first sentence it appears that you do not accept what I say, only my right to say it. That's kind of cheap.

So: Do you want to complain about the taste of the cake, or do you want to complain about how the cake was made?

I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to when you say I do not accept what you say. That you post, edit, delete or leave as the whim strikes you? Accepting that seems gracious rather than cheap. Am I supposed to "accept" everything you say?

Anyway, if you're ever unsure of my intent; and want unvarnished clarity... just ask. I'll certainly oblige.

As for the cake thing, I don't limit myself to false dichotomies. I'll complain about whatever I want.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 19th, 2017, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to when you say I do not accept what you say. That you post, edit, delete or leave as the whim strikes you? Accepting that seems gracious rather than cheap. Am I supposed to "accept" everything you say?

Anyway, if you're ever unsure of my intent; and want unvarnished clarity... just ask. I'll certainly oblige.

As for the cake thing, I don't limit myself to false dichotomies. I'll complain about whatever I want.

You project what you think is my intent onto me. Unfortunately you have pretty much zero idea of what my intent in saying anything is, and so it feels like you are always trying to fit me into one of your philosophical pigeon holes. When I tell you what my intent is in pursuing a particular line of reasoning then I expect you to accept that I am being truthful, rather than you implying that my intent is otherwise and that you know better. You don't.

I don't have a fixed way of thinking about things. This is not based just on what I have learned but also my mood, perhaps a specific purpose, role playing or simply trying to think using different values.

RNHC
January 20th, 2017, 08:17 AM
The definition they gave is to "accept you are a sinner, that Jesus died for your sins and that you accept the risen Jesus into your life as your own personal saviour and you will seek to follow him and his teaching and let him into your life".

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be anything in their definition that implies the divine nature of Jesus. Perhaps the "risen Jesus" part? Although, that part seems to connote that the definition is for a person who is already familiar with Christianity and knows the "risen Jesus" reference.

So in everyday layperson's sense, a Christian simply means one who follows the teachings of Jesus, as many have asserted. So the divinity of Jesus is assumed or really doesn't matter or still being debated as in this thread?

dneal
January 20th, 2017, 08:41 AM
You project what you think is my intent onto me. Unfortunately you have pretty much zero idea of what my intent in saying anything is, and so it feels like you are always trying to fit me into one of your philosophical pigeon holes. When I tell you what my intent is in pursuing a particular line of reasoning then I expect you to accept that I am being truthful, rather than you implying that my intent is otherwise and that you know better. You don't.

It's ironic that you're doing the very thing you are criticizing me for.



I don't have a fixed way of thinking about things. This is not based just on what I have learned but also my mood, perhaps a specific purpose, role playing or simply trying to think using different values.

Ok. I have reached conclusions which can be changed with persuasive enough arguments.

TSherbs
January 25th, 2017, 11:35 AM
There is no one definition of a "Christian." There never has been, either.

Some have said "this." And some have said "that."

We should strive, I think, to get beyond the "this and that." I even think that Jesus would have recoiled at this kind of parsing, but that is, of course, wild speculation on my part. But initially he must have had many followers who were illiterate and called forth only by the force of his presence and power of his parables. Those first fishermen were not given definitional tests. I think that Jesus was much more of a mystic than most Christian sects acknowledge.

jar
January 25th, 2017, 11:52 AM
There is no one definition of a "Christian." There never has been, either.

Some have said "this." And some have said "that."

We should strive, I think, to get beyond the "this and that." I even think that Jesus would have recoiled at this kind of parsing, but that is, of course, wild speculation on my part. But initially he must have had many followers who were illiterate and called forth only by the force of his presence and power of his parables. Those first fishermen were not given definitional tests. I think that Jesus was much more of a mystic than most Christian sects acknowledge.

One thing that can be said as a fact is that Jesus was NOT a Christian.

TSherbs
January 25th, 2017, 12:48 PM
There is no one definition of a "Christian." There never has been, either.

Some have said "this." And some have said "that."

We should strive, I think, to get beyond the "this and that." I even think that Jesus would have recoiled at this kind of parsing, but that is, of course, wild speculation on my part. But initially he must have had many followers who were illiterate and called forth only by the force of his presence and power of his parables. Those first fishermen were not given definitional tests. I think that Jesus was much more of a mystic than most Christian sects acknowledge.

One thing that can be said as a fact is that Jesus was NOT a Christian.

I consider labels unhelpful and concealing of truth rather than revealing of it. Jesus was neither X nor Y. Nor was he not-X and not-Y. Jesus was.

jar
January 25th, 2017, 04:29 PM
I consider labels unhelpful and concealing of truth rather than revealing of it. Jesus was neither X nor Y. Nor was he not-X and not-Y. Jesus was.

Too funny.

TSherbs
January 25th, 2017, 05:37 PM
Too funny.

??



Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

jar
January 26th, 2017, 05:01 AM
Too funny.

??



Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

You talked about revealing truth but then followed it up with a word salad bumper sticker that seems to have absolutely no meaning or informational content.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 26th, 2017, 10:48 AM
It does have meaning and informational content. Dismissing as a 'word salad bumper sticker' just because you don't understand what was said is a rather a cheap shot.

TSherbs
January 26th, 2017, 12:11 PM
Yikes, jar! That sounds harsh.

Let me put it another way: I don't value labels. I consider labels (categories exist only in human thought, not in reality, and not in deeper essence) to be superficial, often misleading, usually prejudiced by the limitations of human understanding and sometimes corrupted by social power. I consider labels to be a form of mental addiction that the West is particularly prone too (although not exclusively), including Judaism and Christianity (the two monotheisms of the West). Honestly, even the terms "West" and "East" contain ambiguity and error. Labels are often a form of discrimination that I consider false, this is what I meant by "concealing of truth." Both Judaism and Christianity have in their mainstream teachings a very strong element of exclusivity, of being "chosen," of being of one group (with definitions, laws, and rules) in counterpoint--sometimes made starkly and violently clear--to the other group(s) which has alien status (with its associated prejudices and lower value). But there also are mystical strains in all the monotheisms and in Eastern thought that try to look to truths deeper than tribal categories and differences. I consider these efforts at the truth of these deeper unities to be more reflective of our real spiritual conditions in this existence. There is nothing insincere or humorous or snarky in my motivation here. I don't even care if anyone else agrees. Indeed, I find this a minority position almost everywhere I go. And I certainly am not trying to persuade you or anyone else to see things similarly. I am no evangelist.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 26th, 2017, 12:49 PM
Those who are dismissive of other opinions and thought would do well to access, read and process this:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/div-classtitlethe-weirdest-people-in-the-worlddiv/BF84F7517D56AFF7B7EB58411A554C17


TSherbs, I am in accord with what you are saying - no surprises there I suppose - but I find the shackles that bind me (at least temporarily) to the geographical, environmental and cultural accident of my inception are tough to break, and as such I make many lapses back into conditioned reasoning (without the reason part at times).

I asked much earlier in this thread what was the purpose in the question of Christian definition. The reason I asked is because in the majority of cases (in my experience) people wish to define, to pigeon-hole, for the purposes of comparison - usually against what they consider to be the norm for them. In other words it is an exercise in selective prejudice and self-affirmation of the worst kind.

jar
January 26th, 2017, 01:44 PM
Yikes, jar! That sounds harsh.

Let me put it another way: I don't value labels. I consider labels (categories exist only in human thought, not in reality, and not in deeper essence) to be superficial, often misleading, usually prejudiced by the limitations of human understanding and sometimes corrupted by social power. I consider labels to be a form of mental addiction that the West is particularly prone too (although not exclusively), including Judaism and Christianity (the two monotheisms of the West). Honestly, even the terms "West" and "East" contain ambiguity and error. Labels are often a form of discrimination that I consider false, this is what I meant by "concealing of truth." Both Judaism and Christianity have in their mainstream teachings a very strong element of exclusivity, of being "chosen," of being of one group (with definitions, laws, and rules) in counterpoint--sometimes made starkly and violently clear--to the other group(s) which has alien status (with its associated prejudices and lower value). But there also are mystical strains in all the monotheisms and in Eastern thought that try to look to truths deeper than tribal categories and differences. I consider these efforts at the truth of these deeper unities to be more reflective of our real spiritual conditions in this existence. There is nothing insincere or humorous or snarky in my motivation here. I don't even care if anyone else agrees. Indeed, I find this a minority position almost everywhere I go. And I certainly am not trying to persuade you or anyone else to see things similarly. I am no evangelist.

Yet you post nonsense, lots of words but no informational content. You seem able to even do it in a broadside in addition to a bumper sticker.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 26th, 2017, 01:52 PM
I strongly suggest you read the journal article in the link I gave.

TSherbs
January 26th, 2017, 05:15 PM
EOC, I too struggle with the very things you describe. We all suffer from these struggles; bless you on your journey. Others are with you, even at a distance. There is no real separateness. Our banishment from the unity of Eden is not indicative of spiritual reality.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

RNHC
January 27th, 2017, 08:27 AM
I asked much earlier in this thread what was the purpose in the question of Christian definition. The reason I asked is because in the majority of cases (in my experience) people wish to define, to pigeon-hole, for the purposes of comparison - usually against what they consider to be the norm for them. In other words it is an exercise in selective prejudice and self-affirmation of the worst kind.

Sometimes it's just an idle intellectual curiosity as in my case. When "something" doesn't have any bearing on one's life, it's hard for that "something" to influence or have a hold on one's behavior or thought. You don't think non-religious people are capable of having a detached, purely intellectual conversation about religion without judgement?

Empty_of_Clouds
January 27th, 2017, 12:43 PM
I do, and I wasn't being 100% exclusionary in my quoted statement. However, religion being what it is, I tend to view the raising of such questions with a healthy degree of suspicion. It usually becomes apparent after a few comments what someone's agenda likely is.

TSherbs
January 27th, 2017, 04:43 PM
I asked much earlier in this thread what was the purpose in the question of Christian definition. The reason I asked is because in the majority of cases (in my experience) people wish to define, to pigeon-hole, for the purposes of comparison - usually against what they consider to be the norm for them. In other words it is an exercise in selective prejudice and self-affirmation of the worst kind.

Sometimes it's just an idle intellectual curiosity as in my case. When "something" doesn't have any bearing on one's life, it's hard for that "something" to influence or have a hold on one's behavior or thought. You don't think non-religious people are capable of having a detached, purely intellectual conversation about religion without judgement?
Good question. Some people can, some can't. I can. Maybe we will see whether the group here can. Or at least for how long.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

TSherbs
January 27th, 2017, 06:22 PM
So, RNHC, how do you feel about the efficacy of definitions and categories in spirituality and religion? Or the purpose of them? What, if any, definitions do you support?

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

RNHC
January 28th, 2017, 12:18 AM
So, RNHC, how do you feel about the efficacy of definitions and categories in spirituality and religion? Or the purpose of them? What, if any, definitions do you support?


Well, my original question was made on the premise of acceptance of Jesus' divinity being the key component of being Christian (as I was taught when I was young). Others have pointed out that wasn't necessarily essential. So I am just confused. :) Nonetheless, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and learning a lot from it.

TSherbs
January 28th, 2017, 05:29 AM
This might also depend on how you define "divinity". I believe that you are as divine as Jesus and I identify as Christian and occasionally attend church.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

TSherbs
January 28th, 2017, 01:09 PM
Others, including my stepfather, a Protestant minister, said that one could not be a Christian unless one believed in the assertions codified in the Apostles' Creed.

I disagreed, but I understood the position.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

EricTheRed
February 11th, 2017, 10:50 PM
I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

It makes you a Deist (which is not necessarily a bad thing, it could be the best thing or a very unfortunate decision based upon your personal set of beliefs). It means you are not a Christian however as believing in the divinity of Jesus is a prerequisite to being a Christian. Sorry, but those are the rules from every mainstream Christian faith. You may be fine with this knowledge that you are no longer a Christian in which case you should continue to follow this path in life and see where it leads you. I personally am a very strong believer in Karma and am confidant good things will happen to you in life if you live in such a way that the world is a better place because you were in it. Conversely, if you are selfish and a detriment to society, bad things will coincidentally but consistently come your way as a warning that you are not following the right path in your life. If you find you are happy being a Deist then you are on the correct path. If you are uncomfortable with no longer being a Christian, then wrestle with, study the bible and challenge your beliefs. You may very well come to the conclusion that Jesus is divine after all and you want to follow his teachings and accept him as your savior. According to Chrisitian belief he will welcome you back with open arms and you will then once again become a Christian. I have my strong personal beliefs and faith based upon my life experiences, but like every other human being in this wonderful world, I do not know the answer with factual proof and absolute certainty. God chooses not to tell us directly and I think that is why it is called "the mystery of faith." In any event, best of luck on your life's journey and may God Bless You!

TSherbs
February 15th, 2017, 04:56 PM
Thanks for your reply and thoughtfulness. The difficulty that I have with "mainstream" definitions is that Jesus gave his life in opposition to mainstream teachings. He had little spiritual interest in how things were normally done. "Normal" had become hollow, or worse, corrupt.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

EricTheRed
February 18th, 2017, 11:43 PM
It is true that Jesus gave his life in opposition to mainstream teachings. I think this was because the mainstream teachers of his time period were corrupt and not teaching people to be humble, love others, and always treat them the way we want to be treated. This benevolence is what Jesus taught so it it much more difficult to ethically or intellectually oppose this school of thought. The fundamentals of Christianity are inherently good for society and allows it to grow and floursh. Look at the growth and high living standard of the West whose societies have been dominated by the Christitian faith. Their have been abnormalities in the West such as the inquisition and evil deeds done by individual priests, but these were notable exceptions not the overwhelming norm. The abnormalities are also not in keeping with the philosophy of Jesus.

Empty_of_Clouds
February 19th, 2017, 12:40 AM
Not sure I agree with any or all of that. Two prominent Western civilisations had a high standard of living in their day and weren't Christian (at least not for the most part) - the Greeks and Romans. The abnormalities you are talking about weren't simple transitory things, they plunged Europe into barbarism for a very long time. It wasn't called the Dark Ages because it happened on a wet weekend!

Also, I believe that the fundamentals of Christianity, as you put it and as I understand it, are not exclusive nor even original to that faith.

dneal
February 19th, 2017, 06:29 AM
It is true that Jesus gave his life in opposition to mainstream teachings. I think this was because the mainstream teachers of his time period were corrupt and not teaching people to be humble, love others, and always treat them the way we want to be treated. This benevolence is what Jesus taught so it it much more difficult to ethically or intellectually oppose this school of thought. The fundamentals of Christianity are inherently good for society and allows it to grow and floursh. Look at the growth and high living standard of the West whose societies have been dominated by the Christitian faith. Their have been abnormalities in the West such as the inquisition and evil deeds done by individual priests, but these were notable exceptions not the overwhelming norm. The abnormalities are also not in keeping with the philosophy of Jesus.

I agree with EOC, and I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate a causal link between Christianity and Western prosperity.

The enlightenment, which often ran counter to Church teachings (not to mention threatening its power), is why the West has been prosperous.

TSherbs
February 19th, 2017, 10:38 AM
Eric, I am also not sure that Jesus had as a requirement for his followers that they think that he is divine in the way that it is meant today. Those first men and women who dropped their nets and left their families were following a sense of spirit more than a doctrine of divinity (or trinity).

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

TSherbs
February 19th, 2017, 10:40 AM
I agree with EOC, and I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate a causal link between Christianity and Western prosperity.

The enlightenment, which often ran counter to Church teachings (not to mention threatening its power), is why the West has been prosperous.
Jared Diamond would agree with your objection.

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

EricTheRed
February 19th, 2017, 05:59 PM
Thanks for the comments and for allowing me to express my thoughts as well as ponder a subject that is much more important than an issue most people spend much time thinking about.

EOC - I had thought the Romans remained very powerful and prosperous for many hundreds of years after converting to Christianity but you caused me to do some research and I discovered the Romans did not become Christian until after the conversion of Emperor Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Rome which was the world's superpower and was founded in 673 BC and peaked in power in 117 AD, began suffering major territorial loss in 376 AD and continued to rapidly deteriorate until Emperor Romulus was deposed in 476 AD. Thanks for the insight.

TSherbs and DNeal - When I look at the record and really think about it, I realize you are correct that it is difficult to defend the proposition that the West was prosperous because of Christianity. However, I would point out the West did prosper while Christian and the Golden Rule, which is pushed by Christianity allowed the permissiveness necessary for the Enlightenment to firmly take root and spread its ideas.

TSherbs - I think the Apostles did believe Jesus was divine and that was a major reason they followed him at great risk to their own safety. I also believe Jesus subjectively was convinced he was divine. I wish he had been able to come down off that cross as I believe that our world would be a much better place if he had...

Fermata
February 28th, 2017, 10:29 AM
Tomorrow at 1.00 I am going to be baptised as an elderly adult because it didn’t happen when I was a baby.

My faith has been rock solid since becoming a Christian more than 20 years ago and my believers baptism is an important part of that journey.

I am very pleased to have made this commitment.

TSherbs
March 1st, 2017, 07:13 PM
Tomorrow at 1.00 I am going to be baptised as an elderly adult because it didn’t happen when I was a baby.

My faith has been rock solid since becoming a Christian more than 20 years ago and my believers baptism is an important part of that journey.

I am very pleased to have made this commitment.
Congrats

Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

Manny
March 3rd, 2017, 09:00 AM
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Tutuguans/25971416-BF8B-4720-83A0-89CE3212E328.jpg

matteob
August 22nd, 2017, 09:06 AM
Jar said it: I guess you are a Unitarian. It is a heretical viewpoint from all the main Christian churches though but there are Unitarian Churches out there. The Watchtower People are unitarians too.

RNHC
August 22nd, 2017, 12:12 PM
It was dneal who first proposed that I may be a Unitarian way back in post 31. From the explanations, I determined that I resembled a Deist the best.

Memory
August 29th, 2017, 10:40 AM
Lively thread here. Technically I'm not sure that believing in God makes you deist. The deist movement is the blind watchmaker concept. We tend to believe that we can't say for certain whether there is or isn't a god as it's unknowable given that we are not omniscient. There may be a god, there may not, but either way, we hold ourselves accountable for our actions and do not believe in divine intervention. We recognize, however, that sum totality of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts and that there are patterns that could be attributed to a god.

As a contrast, atheists strongly believe that there is no god, and that there is sufficient evidence that god does not exist. Agnostics don't really care one way or the other if there's a god. Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.

While most people would say that Christians must believe in the holy trinity, that has become much more lax as more and more Protestant religions crop up. Some would say that if you believe in the teachings in the New Testament, you are a Christian. Jesus could be the son of God, but he's still an ordinary human being. Others would say that you must believe that Jesus is endowed with special gifts and talents from God in order to be considered a Christian.

My background? Complicated. My parents were refugees from Vietnam. My dad was Buddhist, my mom was Roman Catholic, and a Lutheran church sponsored my family so we had 3 services we had to go to. Polytheism at its finest. I clearly remember sitting in through a sermon as a 6 year old where the pastor was talking about the golden calf. I thought about my house where we had our "alter" with a gold Buddha, my ancestors, and our family's kitchen gods, and realized that yup, I was confused. That was okay though because even then, I viewed religion as a cultural and sociological construct where different points of view were not mutually exclusive. When I was in 6th grade in my first world history class, they defined Deism and I swear, my classmates could see a lightbulb go off in my head. Finally! Something that described my personal beliefs.

I remained curious and earned a double degree in biology and religion as an undergraduate. FWIW, I often think of Shepherd Book's quote from Firefly: "It doesn't matter what you believe in, just as long as you believe."

LeFreak
August 29th, 2017, 06:56 PM
As a contrast, atheists strongly believe that there is no god, and that there is sufficient evidence that god does not exist. Agnostics don't really care one way or the other if there's a god. Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.



That's not how I define it myself, as an atheist.

Atheist=no belief in God or gods.

Agnostic=believes that nothing can be known beyond the material world.

So atheism is a term of belief, while agnostic is a term of knowledge.

RNHC
August 30th, 2017, 11:04 AM
The deist movement... tend to believe that we can't say for certain whether there is or isn't a god as it's unknowable given that we are not omniscient. There may be a god, there may not, but either way, we hold ourselves accountable for our actions and do not believe in divine intervention.
.
.
Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.


Your definition of a Deist doesn't appear to be correct. You are describing an Agnostic. My understanding is that to be a Deist, one must believe in God (or a Supreme Being). After all, the words deism and deist literally derived from Latin word, deus, for God.

Medievalist
September 4th, 2017, 02:48 PM
The text-book answer is that a Christian, of whatever a denomination, accepts the Nicene Creed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed).

In practice it's a lot slippery; I can remember as a child (I'm a PK) noticing that some churches retained the reference to the Harrowing of Hell in the Creed; some omitted it. And at the churches that retained it, some members didn't say that part.

fqgouvea
September 4th, 2017, 03:15 PM
The text-book answer is that a Christian, of whatever a denomination, accepts the Nicene Creed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed).

In practice it's a lot slippery; I can remember as a child (I'm a PK) noticing that some churches retained the reference to the Harrowing of Hell in the Creed; some omitted it. And at the churches that retained it, some members didn't say that part.

You're confusing the Nicene with the Apostles' Creed. No descent into hell in the Nicene.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SIR
September 10th, 2017, 12:46 AM
Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

So, from my limited perspective, i would suggest the example and message of Jesus Christ is to tolerate that which you do not love and not obsess about that which you do love. Don't limit yourself with definitions, think for yourself, and adapt and overcome. Too many so called believers of pretty much all 'religions' have had their throats slit whilst being sodomised (both literally and metaphorically, ą la Pasolini's Salņ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom)) for the sake of someone elses teaching or interpretation of a teaching.

You are a true Christian if you don't want yourself, or anyone else, to be a slave or a sacrifice.

Drubbing
February 17th, 2018, 07:20 PM
A second common but amazing belief seems to be that "The Bible™" is only one book and not an anthology of anthologies written by mostly unknown authors over uncounted periods of time edited by unknown editors and still later redacted and translated and edited yet again, often for social and political reasons instead of theological ones.



It's staggering the many people who have no understanding of the origins and many (mis)translations of the bible. Which would bring into question many of the words within, and their true origins. I see many unthinkingly reciting incarnations by rote.

To back up to the original question for a moment, it depends on your version of 'true' Christian. Is it one who take the bible literally as the word of god? If so, you would have to do as the clergy do, and carefully cherry pick the good from the hateful, the plentiful calls for genocide and infanticide, and the out of date rules that were meant for a nomadic and peasant tribe. The word of this god is questionable in my atheist view, as this all powerful and omnipotent being also seems to suffer from a needy inferiority complex of schizophrenic and psychopathic proportions. Almost humanoid, really...

Also, many evangelical versions of 'good Christians' aren't happy to leave others to be good, moral people without a magical rudder, and will not rest until everyone else is also Christian, and pay ongoing subscriptions.

Back to the mistranslations. Original documents as stated above are a cobbled together tome of many unknown authors, from different languages and points in time. Not least of which, the word Virgin has been mistranslated from the original languages which meant young woman or maiden. The world's biggest cult has sprung from such misappropriations.

Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

Many modern bibles have stripped the KJ of virtually all of its lyrical power, in order to make it easier to understand. Or to provide clearer orders. Seems to be that people find poetry a bit to hard to digest in the modern age and it's become a tool of utility. But these again, add yet more layers of mistranslation, as modern authors seek to apply their own agendas on certain parts of the text for their own needs. To aptly quote the "professional" atheist, Christopher Hitchens, the constant meddling and re-purposing is, "Further demonstration that religion is man made, with inky human fingerprints all over its supposedly inspired and unalterable texts."

jar
February 20th, 2018, 03:29 PM
Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

It is also forgotten that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was far more a political creation than a theological one. James I & VI was well aware that the great threat to the civilization of that period was Christianity's inability to get along between Chapters of Club Christian. Even a monarch was not secure and safe as his family history made clear. The KJV was an attempt to tone down the level of animosity between the two primary Chapters of Club Christian in the Islands, to broker an "I can Live with that" acceptance from both parties like Edwards earlier creation of the Book of Common Prayer. The secondary but near equal purpose was to provide a theological basis for the Divine Right of Kings and support his other writings on that topic.

Unfortunately for his son Charles, even that effort failed.

Drubbing
March 4th, 2018, 09:59 PM
Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

It is also forgotten that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was far more a political creation than a theological one. James I & VI was well aware that the great threat to the civilization of that period was Christianity's inability to get along between Chapters of Club Christian. Even a monarch was not secure and safe as his family history made clear. The KJV was an attempt to tone down the level of animosity between the two primary Chapters of Club Christian in the Islands, to broker an "I can Live with that" acceptance from both parties like Edwards earlier creation of the Book of Common Prayer. The secondary but near equal purpose was to provide a theological basis for the Divine Right of Kings and support his other writings on that topic.

Unfortunately for his son Charles, even that effort failed.

Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

jar
March 7th, 2018, 07:54 AM
Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

You're fairly new here so just some background to place what I post in context.

I am a devout Cradle Creedal Christian, do believe in God and that there was a Jesus who did teach and did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven and who will judge me after I die, I was raised in a Christian family, am a member of a recognized Christian denomination, was educated in a Christian school, helped found a new parish and build their first worship place, have been a Sunday school teacher for kids and adults and have created quite a few Christian church websites.

Now back to the topic.

That is a common human failing but not really the fault of the authors of the stories and partially the fault of those creating a "Bible" but mostly the fault of those marketing Christianity. The idea that there is such a things as "The Bible™" and that it is one book with one story and one narrative that is just about Jesus is a creation of certain chapters of Club Christian. Hebrews understood correctly that the stories in what we call the Old Testament were separate, individual stories and each had its own purpose. They understood not all were about God and absolutely none of the Old Testament tales were about Jesus.

But if you actually read those stories the God character is generally not omnipotent or omniscient or always honest or always just or always playing fair. In fact the God character in a story is the God character created by the author to carry along the actual purpose of the story.

The much newer, much more recent God character found in the Genesis 1 story is omniscient and omnipotent but also aloof, separate and not having any interaction with the things created beyond looking at them and declaring them good. But the purpose of the Gen 1 story is not the God character but rather the very important to Judaism concept of the Sacred Week and the Sabbath.

The God character in the much older story found in Genesis 2&3 is definitely not omniscient or omnipotent or honest and in fact rather bumbling and learning on the job. But it is the right character for the story that is actually a Just So story explaining why we have to farm instead of just being hunter gatherers, why child birth seemed so much more painful for humans than for the other animals, why we fear snakes or get old and die or have a society based on rules of conduct or need to make clothes instead of having a built in coat like the other animals.

Genesis 11 is yet another Just So story; this time the purpose of the story is to explain why not everyone speaks the same language.

The God in the Exodus story is a really nasty piece of work who does not keep his word and punishes people simply to show that He can punish people; going so far as to change the persons mind even after the person agrees to God's demands just to punish the person even more. That God even goes so far as to punish the story protagonist just for a minor infraction when the protagonist places his duty to protect those in his care over the commands from that God. But again, it is the right God for that story, the story about the founding of a peoples apart, the property literally of their God.

Much of the Old Testament tales are pure politics; who's gonna be in charge, the Priests or a secular King or Prince? What are the duties, rights and prerogatives of each tribe? Which tribes are allied right now?

As the tribes unified into quasi kingdoms they each developed their own Chapter of Club Hebrew and with the diaspora into many chapters of Club Hebrew, each claiming to be the TRUE Hebrew.

And that is reflect again in the stories when seen individually. The God and even the actual titles used in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are different and from different eras and cultures. There is not one Flood story but two mutually exclusive flood story all mixed up together. The stories reflect political reality of a period; Kings versus Priests; Judah versus Israel; changing allegiances of the tribes; the attempt at restoration of Judaism when threatened by the comfort and prosperity and acceptance of the Jews in Exile and the marketing campaign to get them to physically return to Palestine.

But in much of Christianity we fail to teach kids these basics and instead resort to unthinking acceptance of dogma, proof texts, bumper sticker theology, denial of reality and we get exactly what we create. All the errors found how Christianity teaches the Old Testament are equally valid when looking at how much if not most of modern Christianity teaches the New Testament with the additional sin of taking things totally out of context and then actually misrepresent what the passage meant.

And don't get me started on canons and creeds and utter nonsense and carny palm the pea dishonesty like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

adhoc
March 8th, 2018, 09:34 AM
Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

SIR
March 9th, 2018, 10:01 AM
Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

I have a sense of humour and enjoy a challenge, failing that i can fall back on the irony of others' hypocritical conceit and judgmentalism.

adhoc
March 9th, 2018, 10:33 AM
Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

I have a sense of humour and enjoy a challenge, failing that i can fall back on the irony of others' hypocritical conceit and judgmentalism.

I’m not sure if I’m too young or too old to be able to come to peace with it.

Drubbing
March 18th, 2018, 04:26 AM
Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

You're fairly new here so just some background to place what I post in context.

I am a devout Cradle Creedal Christian, do believe in God and that there was a Jesus who did teach and did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven and who will judge me after I die, I was raised in a Christian family, am a member of a recognized Christian denomination, was educated in a Christian school, helped found a new parish and build their first worship place, have been a Sunday school teacher for kids and adults and have created quite a few Christian church websites.



I'm be new here, but not to the discussion of religion. I need to believe in things that make sense, not in accepting faith based arguments that require adherence for their own sake, for fear of retribution before or after death. I'm quite capable of being a good person without being told how it's done. For your context, I'm Catholic school raised from kindergarten to high school and I rejected all of it whilst still a child - even though I wasn't fully cognisant of this at the time. It seemed to be an antiquated theatre, with defined traditions and customs, but far too many contradictions to hold water when thought about.

All of which are experiences covered in your interesting post, which refers to god as a fictional character. Yes, god's character does change with bible chapters and versions. That's because men wrote the books. Some later versions were written for social and political reasons. Which makes a fallacy of the book being his words.

jar
March 18th, 2018, 07:13 AM
[QUOTE=jar;233877]
I'm be new here, but not to the discussion of religion. I need to believe in things that make sense, not in accepting faith based arguments that require adherence for their own sake, for fear of retribution before or after death. I'm quite capable of being a good person without being told how it's done. For your context, I'm Catholic school raised from kindergarten to high school and I rejected all of it whilst still a child - even though I wasn't fully cognisant of this at the time. It seemed to be an antiquated theatre, with defined traditions and customs, but far too many contradictions to hold water when thought about.

All of which are experiences covered in your interesting post, which refers to god as a fictional character. Yes, god's character does change with bible chapters and versions. That's because men wrote the books. Some later versions were written for social and political reasons. Which makes a fallacy of the book being his words.

And your tale reflects the topic extremely well. Had Christianity been present to you as a child in a different fashion; had the stories been placed in context related to the era and mythos of the period when they were created; had the concept of GOD as a creator been discriminated from God(mixed case) the character in a particular story or god(lower case) the creation of different humans trying to come to terms with the unknown and unexplained realities would your experience have been different?

The topic "Definition of a Christian" has as many answers as there are respondents. And "What is Christianity" may be even more variable. But both resolve to a question of what a person was taught and was the person was taught HOW to think or WHAT to think.

Fermata
March 18th, 2018, 10:31 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

jar
March 18th, 2018, 04:06 PM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

Exactly. Muhammad and the Buddha are two such examples.

Fermata
March 19th, 2018, 09:59 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

Exactly. Muhammad and the Buddha are two such examples.


.....and Fermata.

Perhaps not as well known.

Drubbing
March 20th, 2018, 06:54 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

I think many people have had a share of those, life is full of a range of experiences. Can't see why such a thing would make me believe in a god, unless I already did.

Drubbing
March 20th, 2018, 06:57 AM
[QUOTE=jar;233877]
I'm be new here, but not to the discussion of religion. I need to believe in things that make sense, not in accepting faith based arguments that require adherence for their own sake, for fear of retribution before or after death. I'm quite capable of being a good person without being told how it's done. For your context, I'm Catholic school raised from kindergarten to high school and I rejected all of it whilst still a child - even though I wasn't fully cognisant of this at the time. It seemed to be an antiquated theatre, with defined traditions and customs, but far too many contradictions to hold water when thought about.

All of which are experiences covered in your interesting post, which refers to god as a fictional character. Yes, god's character does change with bible chapters and versions. That's because men wrote the books. Some later versions were written for social and political reasons. Which makes a fallacy of the book being his words.

And your tale reflects the topic extremely well. Had Christianity been present to you as a child in a different fashion; had the stories been placed in context related to the era and mythos of the period when they were created; had the concept of GOD as a creator been discriminated from God(mixed case) the character in a particular story or god(lower case) the creation of different humans trying to come to terms with the unknown and unexplained realities would your experience have been different?



Struggling to see what your response is driving at, but I think a simple No, still suffices. It doesn't matter how differently presented religion would have been, it wouldn't make me any more open to it. While i was hardly any sort of rebel, I also wasn't one to run with the herd either and do what other people did without considering why and what the point was. Although a child I looked at it all with a cynical eye, and wondered why people would believe such things. Clearly some people need something as a belief system.

Where I have a problem with religion is when it is being hard sold to me as the only answer to living, and I am some sort of evil or lesser person for not being sold. Religion seems to do a lot of judging and requiring obedience for its own sake.

jar
March 20th, 2018, 07:15 AM
Religion seems to do a lot of judging and requiring obedience for its own sake.

My question revolves around that point. If religion had been presented as non-judgemental and explaining the practical reasons for certain behaviors would your position be different?

Sticking within the Christian spectrum, had Christianity been presented as one possible path to follow among many possible paths and instead of Commandments (613 "Thou Shalt Not"s) as a series of reasoned ethical and moral choices would you have reacted differently to the very concept of religion? Had it accepted non-belief as an equally valid option would that have changed your position on religion itself?

Fermata
March 20th, 2018, 10:16 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

I think many people have had a share of those, life is full of a range of experiences. Can't see why such a thing would make me believe in a god, unless I already did.

Is this meant to be provocative? I have seen your troll posts elsewhere on the net and guess this is another.

If you were Saul on the road, and you had a dramatic life changing experience, as I have, do you really say that it would not make you believe in a god. Either very confident in your atheism or something else.

As someone once said, dont feed the troll, so I am stepping out.

Empty_of_Clouds
March 21st, 2018, 03:21 AM
Religion seems to do a lot of judging and requiring obedience for its own sake.

My question revolves around that point. If religion had been presented as non-judgemental and explaining the practical reasons for certain behaviors would your position be different?

Sticking within the Christian spectrum, had Christianity been presented as one possible path to follow among many possible paths and instead of Commandments (613 "Thou Shalt Not"s) as a series of reasoned ethical and moral choices would you have reacted differently to the very concept of religion? Had it accepted non-belief as an equally valid option would that have changed your position on religion itself?


I don't like bananas. If they tasted like apples then I would like them, but then they wouldn't be bananas though, so...

jar
March 21st, 2018, 07:15 AM
Religion seems to do a lot of judging and requiring obedience for its own sake.

My question revolves around that point. If religion had been presented as non-judgemental and explaining the practical reasons for certain behaviors would your position be different?

Sticking within the Christian spectrum, had Christianity been presented as one possible path to follow among many possible paths and instead of Commandments (613 "Thou Shalt Not"s) as a series of reasoned ethical and moral choices would you have reacted differently to the very concept of religion? Had it accepted non-belief as an equally valid option would that have changed your position on religion itself?


I don't like bananas. If they tasted like apples then I would like them, but then they wouldn't be bananas though, so...

Is there a point hidden in that response somewhere?

Empty_of_Clouds
March 21st, 2018, 12:58 PM
It should be fairly obvious. Especially to one who regularly makes obtuse comments.

jar
March 21st, 2018, 03:48 PM
It should be fairly obvious. Especially to one who regularly makes obtuse comments.

Yet the reality is that any meaning is not apparent or seemingly relevant or reasoned.

What does it have to do with the topic? Or religion? Or much of anything beyond a pointless truism?

Empty_of_Clouds
March 21st, 2018, 04:48 PM
It should be fairly obvious. Especially to one who regularly makes obtuse comments.

Yet the reality is that any meaning is not apparent or seemingly relevant or reasoned.

What does it have to do with the topic? Or religion? Or much of anything beyond a pointless truism?



As is the case with many of the comments you post. Asking someone if their opinion on Christianity would be different if Christianity itself was presented differently (which is what you asked in #184), is essentially the same.

Bananas are bananas. Apples are apples. Changing the name does not change their substance.

jar
March 21st, 2018, 04:57 PM
It should be fairly obvious. Especially to one who regularly makes obtuse comments.

Yet the reality is that any meaning is not apparent or seemingly relevant or reasoned.

What does it have to do with the topic? Or religion? Or much of anything beyond a pointless truism?



As is the case with many of the comments you post. Asking someone if their opinion on Christianity would be different if Christianity itself was presented differently (which is what you asked in #184), is essentially the same.

Bananas are bananas. Apples are apples. Changing the name does not change their substance.

But Christianity is not monolithic, there is no such thing as "The Christianity™" and when I suggest Christianity might be presented differently it does not change the fact that it is still Christianity; thus your attempted bumper sticker is still meaning less or at best a trivial truism.

So again, is there some message or meaning or relevance in your posts in this thread?

Empty_of_Clouds
March 21st, 2018, 05:12 PM
Of course there is meaning and relevance.


... when I suggest Christianity might be presented differently it does not change the fact that it is still Christianity

Eat cake, have it too. That's what your statement implies. The way Christianity is presented is, I would argue, fundamental to the religion itself. To change details is to alter the religion.

Clearer now?

jar
March 21st, 2018, 06:29 PM
Of course there is meaning and relevance.


... when I suggest Christianity might be presented differently it does not change the fact that it is still Christianity

Eat cake, have it too. That's what your statement implies. The way Christianity is presented is, I would argue, fundamental to the religion itself. To change details is to alter the religion.

Clearer now?

Not really at all. There are thousands of different versions of Christianity. So what is fundamental to a Chicago Statement of Inerrancy Christian may not be fundamental to a member of a different chapter of club Christian.

That is in fact the actual topic.

So once again, how are your posts related or relevant to the topic?

Empty_of_Clouds
March 21st, 2018, 06:52 PM
How are yours anything more than a hair-splitting attempt to drive an agenda (or sway an opinion)?

jar
March 22nd, 2018, 06:06 AM
How are yours anything more than a hair-splitting attempt to drive an agenda (or sway an opinion)?

Again, what does that have to do with the topic?

Empty_of_Clouds
March 22nd, 2018, 12:37 PM
It relates to the late thread argument you are deploying, not the earlier parts.

EricTheRed
March 22nd, 2018, 05:33 PM
I understand what you are saying JAR, and I think that even if a child at an early age, is introduced to the best version of Christianity by the most well meaning and altruistic teachers, the ability of its message and corresponding faith sticking depend on the individual receiving the message. In this optimal scenario, I think you would end up with significantly more lifetime believers than normal Christian parishes achieve, but never achieve 100% success. Faith is very individual and some will choose to believe the tenets of Christianity but others will not believe, some for selfish reasons, but others for sound, logical reasons (most certainly logical to them) due to atheism or another religion.

Drubbing
March 23rd, 2018, 09:13 AM
Of course there is meaning and relevance.


... when I suggest Christianity might be presented differently it does not change the fact that it is still Christianity

Eat cake, have it too. That's what your statement implies. The way Christianity is presented is, I would argue, fundamental to the religion itself. To change details is to alter the religion.

Clearer now?

Not really at all. There are thousands of different versions of Christianity. So what is fundamental to a Chicago Statement of Inerrancy Christian may not be fundamental to a member of a different chapter of club Christian.

That is in fact the actual topic.

So once again, how are your posts related or relevant to the topic?

You can't posit hypotheticals about how Christianity might present itself differently, and then ask if someone would feel differently about the concept. Maybe they would. maybe not. Children, as you asked in an earlier question, is a different thing again. Some are more susceptible to suggestion, coercion and asserts of 'fact' that religion uses, than others. So some would some wouldn't, just as they do with current approaches.

But Christianity doesn't present options of belief, or options for atheism, that's pretty much contradictory to how it operates. The thousands of different versions of Christianity, all shades of the same colour.

Drubbing
March 23rd, 2018, 09:22 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

I think many people have had a share of those, life is full of a range of experiences. Can't see why such a thing would make me believe in a god, unless I already did.

Is this meant to be provocative? I have seen your troll posts elsewhere on the net and guess this is another.

If you were Saul on the road, and you had a dramatic life changing experience, as I have, do you really say that it would not make you believe in a god. Either very confident in your atheism or something else.

As someone once said, dont feed the troll, so I am stepping out.

No, it's a civil discussion and I'm putting my viewpoint courteously to others. I'm being polite and civil with any responses here, so can't see any accusations of trolling as valid. My point was that people predisposed to religion will see or turn to a god in any major life event. I've had those too and haven't, because I'm not predisposed to the concept of religion or gods.

I don't agree with religious belief, but if people want that in their lives that's their choice. But I do have issues with organised religion and the influence of the church on the lives of those who don't believe. My life and beliefs are none of the churches' business, and its mores and agendas should not dictate society as a whole.

Plus, I don't get around the net that much, so if you've seen me 'troll' elsewhere, then one of us must be very busy online. Frankly, I don't have that much spare time and have limited interests.

Fermata
March 23rd, 2018, 11:37 AM
I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

I think many people have had a share of those, life is full of a range of experiences. Can't see why such a thing would make me believe in a god, unless I already did.

Is this meant to be provocative? I have seen your troll posts elsewhere on the net and guess this is another.

If you were Saul on the road, and you had a dramatic life changing experience, as I have, do you really say that it would not make you believe in a god. Either very confident in your atheism or something else.

As someone once said, dont feed the troll, so I am stepping out.

No, it's a civil discussion and I'm putting my viewpoint courteously to others. I'm being polite and civil with any responses here, so can't see any accusations of trolling as valid. My point was that people predisposed to religion will see or turn to a god in any major life event. I've had those too and haven't, because I'm not predisposed to the concept of religion or gods.

I don't agree with religious belief, but if people want that in their lives that's their choice. But I do have issues with organised religion and the influence of the church on the lives of those who don't believe. My life and beliefs are none of the churches' business, and its mores and agendas should not dictate society as a whole.

Plus, I don't get around the net that much, so if you've seen me 'troll' elsewhere, then one of us must be very busy online. Frankly, I don't have that much spare time and have limited interests.


I have seen you provoke, annoy and belittle anyone who doesnt agree with you on two forums, stating your opinions as facts and goading people into a response even when you state, as you have done now, that the topic on 'what is a Christian' is not relevant as you dont agree with religous belief.

If you dont have a dog in the race step away from the keyboard and stop being a Troll, and an annoying one at that.

SIR
March 24th, 2018, 12:53 AM
New definition:
A Christian is one who is obsessed/fixated with the 'story' of Jesus Christ.

One question for so-called Christians - thinking objectively, how can one vet an angel or messiah to be sure they are not, say for example, the devil or similar malevolent being in disguise? Of course, there is the concept of 'faith' but isn't this used to subjugate and exploit believers of all religions?

I wonder how it is religion still survives when we have the well established concept of 'intelligence', such as used by military or police, to investigate and explain otherwise mysterious and confusing incidents/events.

Empty_of_Clouds
March 24th, 2018, 04:33 AM
New definition:
A Christian is one who is obsessed/fixated with the 'story' of Jesus Christ.

One question for so-called Christians - thinking objectively, how can one vet an angel or messiah to be sure they are not, say for example, the devil or similar malevolent being in disguise? Of course, there is the concept of 'faith' but isn't this used to subjugate and exploit believers of all religions?

I wonder how it is religion still survives when we have the well established concept of 'intelligence', such as used by military or police, to investigate and explain otherwise mysterious and confusing incidents/events.

Indeed. Why religious belief exists at all is something of a mystery, when none of it holds up when even the weakest light of inquiry is cast on it.

adhoc
March 28th, 2018, 02:09 AM
Life is generally shit, if you’re not easily amused. I can find a reason why an institution giving hope and positivity would exist. Besides, the religion of atheism is far more obtrusive, and I’m not religious beyond spending extra money on Christmas and eating hard boiled eggs on Easter.

Bold2013
March 28th, 2018, 02:11 PM
The religion of atheism, well put.

Matthew 18:3 in regards to the child matter.

SIR
March 28th, 2018, 03:00 PM
And so the eternal cycle of the Yugas (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga) proceeds as always... theism, polytheism, monotheism, atheism - and repeat.

john1565
March 30th, 2018, 10:24 AM
To me Christianity means love and sacrifice. Jesus spread love and only love. Unfortunately, churches and rulers didn't follow the path of love. Jesus sacrificed his life for his ideology and as a result he is most probably the most short-lived prophet. Even he could not went many places to spread Christianity as can be seen from his tour map on wikitour (http://www.wikitour.io/tours/jesus-christ). Its astonishing how his followers have been use a path of hatred, how they tortured Galileo and other scientists!

Drubbing
March 30th, 2018, 08:15 PM
[QUOTE=Drubbing;234954][QUOTE=Fermata;234748][QUOTE=Drubbing;234741][QUOTE=Fermata;234599]I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

I have seen you provoke, annoy and belittle anyone who doesnt agree with you on two forums, stating your opinions as facts and goading people into a response even when you state, as you have done now, that the topic on 'what is a Christian' is not relevant as you dont agree with religous belief.

If you dont have a dog in the race step away from the keyboard and stop being a Troll, and an annoying one at that.

Only annoying to you it seems. I'll lose heaps of sleep over that. As for goading people in my response, you're the only one seeing that too. From what I can see, anyone with an opinion has a dog in this race, it's not a thread that excludes non believers. So I'll state my opinion along with everyone else.

jar
March 31st, 2018, 06:28 AM
I understand what you are saying JAR, and I think that even if a child at an early age, is introduced to the best version of Christianity by the most well meaning and altruistic teachers, the ability of its message and corresponding faith sticking depend on the individual receiving the message. In this optimal scenario, I think you would end up with significantly more lifetime believers than normal Christian parishes achieve, but never achieve 100% success. Faith is very individual and some will choose to believe the tenets of Christianity but others will not believe, some for selfish reasons, but others for sound, logical reasons (most certainly logical to them) due to atheism or another religion.

But that is very reasonable and also desirable.

There are two connected and inseparable parts involved, those things which can be tested and verified and those things which are unevidenced. The moral system, ethical system that can be tested and does effect society would fall under the first part while concepts like any post life judgement, even the afterlife itself as well as the existence of a God or of sin or a dogma such as the Trinity all fall in the latter group.

We fail though within Christianity to teach the distinctions or necessary discrimination for the members to see and understand those facts.

jar
March 31st, 2018, 06:38 AM
New definition:
A Christian is one who is obsessed/fixated with the 'story' of Jesus Christ.

One question for so-called Christians - thinking objectively, how can one vet an angel or messiah to be sure they are not, say for example, the devil or similar malevolent being in disguise? Of course, there is the concept of 'faith' but isn't this used to subjugate and exploit believers of all religions?

I wonder how it is religion still survives when we have the well established concept of 'intelligence', such as used by military or police, to investigate and explain otherwise mysterious and confusing incidents/events.

Honestly, there is no way to vet an angel or messiah to be sure they are not, say for example, the devil or similar malevolent being in disguise or even if they exist.

And yes, faith can be used to subjugate people but it is certainly not unique to religion. Look at sports or politics or economics or advertising and even there you find faith playing a big part.

And there isn't really such a thing as "the 'story' of Jesus Christ" but just as with the Bible or Chapters of the Club or most any other thing there are variations on a theme. Some great examples of that can be found in the Bible itself. Not only does the character and traits of God vary from story to story, the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told by John is different than the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told in the Synoptic Gospels and even something a basic to Christianity as the Great Commissions changes and evolves with every retelling within the Bible.

Fermata
March 31st, 2018, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE=Drubbing;234954][QUOTE=Fermata;234748][QUOTE=Drubbing;234741][QUOTE=Fermata;234599]I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

I have seen you provoke, annoy and belittle anyone who doesnt agree with you on two forums, stating your opinions as facts and goading people into a response even when you state, as you have done now, that the topic on 'what is a Christian' is not relevant as you dont agree with religous belief.

If you dont have a dog in the race step away from the keyboard and stop being a Troll, and an annoying one at that.

Only annoying to you it seems. I'll lose heaps of sleep over that.

As for goading people in my response, you're the only one seeing that too.

From what I can see, anyone with an opinion has a dog in this race, it's not a thread that excludes non believers.

So I'll state my opinion along with everyone else.


Thank God I dont have to listen to you in real life, pompous prick.

SIR
April 2nd, 2018, 12:12 AM
Thank God I dont have to listen to you in real life, pompous prick.

Pretty much what i'd say to the Pope, Dalai Lama, Queen of England et al... if i ever had the opportunity.

dneal
April 2nd, 2018, 05:47 AM
I wonder how it is religion still survives when we have the well established concept of 'intelligence', such as used by military or police, to investigate and explain otherwise mysterious and confusing incidents/events.

Indeed. Why religious belief exists at all is something of a mystery, when none of it holds up when even the weakest light of inquiry is cast on it.

Something along the lines of this came up during a Peterson / Haidt discussion about the state of our current universities. Although they seem to single out the progressive left, they note it applies to any viewpoint that becomes “fundamentalist”. Interesting and perhaps salient clip...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PuxuGamWUM

SIR
April 2nd, 2018, 06:33 AM
And there isn't really such a thing as "the 'story' of Jesus Christ" but just as with the Bible or Chapters of the Club or most any other thing there are variations on a theme. Some great examples of that can be found in the Bible itself. Not only does the character and traits of God vary from story to story, the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told by John is different than the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told in the Synoptic Gospels and even something a basic to Christianity as the Great Commissions changes and evolves with every retelling within the Bible.

Jesus was considered a traitor, a fraud, and an ideological criminal by the educated elite of his own contemporary society, yet judged to be without fault by the representative of the foreign occupiers... and retrospectively, looking at the history of the relationship between the Roman Empire, Christians, and Jews since, it is easy to see why.

Essentially my opinion of all religious proponents is that they, no matter how well meaning, are frauds and traitors, to themselves and their own society. Politicians, royalty, and other unqualified and so-called leaders fall into the same category.

Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

jar
April 2nd, 2018, 06:49 AM
And there isn't really such a thing as "the 'story' of Jesus Christ" but just as with the Bible or Chapters of the Club or most any other thing there are variations on a theme. Some great examples of that can be found in the Bible itself. Not only does the character and traits of God vary from story to story, the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told by John is different than the "'story' of Jesus Christ" as told in the Synoptic Gospels and even something a basic to Christianity as the Great Commissions changes and evolves with every retelling within the Bible.

Jesus was considered a traitor, a fraud, and an ideological criminal by the educated elite of his own contemporary society, yet judged to be without fault by the representative of the foreign occupiers... and retrospectively, looking at the history of the relationship between the Roman Empire, Christians, and Jews since, it is easy to see why.

Essentially my opinion of all religious proponents is that they, no matter how well meaning, are frauds and traitors, to themselves and their own society. Politicians, royalty, and other unqualified and so-called leaders fall into the same category.

Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

Feel all better now?

Bzzer
April 2nd, 2018, 12:00 PM
Watched a TV program called the scariest night of my life. One of the first people shown, who came across very well, had been visited by an evil spirit during the night, the description of what happened to her was terrifying in the extreme, it had only started when she began using a ouija board. The spirit left when she called on Gods help to get rid of the spirit.

The same thing happened to me over three successive nights, with an evil force gathering strength until the third night felt like a battlefield and I had to call on Christ's help to get rid of the evil force, nothing short of extreme fear on my part.

SIR
April 2nd, 2018, 11:52 PM
Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

Feel all better now?

You should watch Dmitry Vasyukov and Werner Herzog's "Happy People"; a four hour film covering four seasons of life in a Siberian hunting community near the Taiga... barring a single reference to house fires and negligence, no mention of god or religion.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1683876/


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cijkIXXiSW4

jar
April 3rd, 2018, 04:57 AM
Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

Feel all better now?

You should watch Dmitry Vasyukov and Werner Herzog's "Happy People"; a four hour film covering four seasons of life in a Siberian hunting community near the Taiga... barring a single reference to house fires and negligence, no mention of god or religion.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1683876/


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cijkIXXiSW4

Why should I watch any video? And what could that possibly have to do with the topic?

Empty_of_Clouds
April 4th, 2018, 04:28 AM
Religion is based primarily upon fear.

It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.

In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

SIR
April 4th, 2018, 04:29 AM
Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

Feel all better now?

You should watch Dmitry Vasyukov and Werner Herzog's "Happy People"; a four hour film covering four seasons of life in a Siberian hunting community near the Taiga... barring a single reference to house fires and negligence, no mention of god or religion.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1683876/


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cijkIXXiSW4

Why should I watch any video? And what could that possibly have to do with the topic?

Of course, you jest?

jar
April 4th, 2018, 05:01 AM
Religion is like the ultimate corruption; 'believe' in a superior and ultimate power and what judgment have you cast upon yourself?

Feel all better now?

You should watch Dmitry Vasyukov and Werner Herzog's "Happy People"; a four hour film covering four seasons of life in a Siberian hunting community near the Taiga... barring a single reference to house fires and negligence, no mention of god or religion.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1683876/


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cijkIXXiSW4

Why should I watch any video? And what could that possibly have to do with the topic?

Of course, you jest?

No, I do not jest. Unless someone presents a reasoned argument for me to waste time watching a video I will choose not to. And so far you have not presented any reasoning to encourage me to watch the video or presented any explanation of what it might have to do with the topic.

EricTheRed
April 4th, 2018, 06:59 PM
To me Christianity means love and sacrifice. Jesus spread love and only love. Unfortunately, churches and rulers didn't follow the path of love. Jesus sacrificed his life for his ideology and as a result he is most probably the most short-lived prophet. Even he could not went many places to spread Christianity as can be seen from his tour map on wikitour (http://www.wikitour.io/tours/jesus-christ). Its astonishing how his followers have been use a path of hatred, how they tortured Galileo and other scientists!

I dont agree at all with this characterization of Christianity. The vast majority of Christians and Christian teaching extols loving others as yourself, being charitable, reaping what you (rather than others) sow (ie personal responsibility and accountability), and generally leading an ethical, productive life. This usually results in success in life for its practioners and a resultant pleasant life for their offspring and surrounding community. A neighborhood filled with such people in any western country is a peaceful, pleasant, safe place to live. Characterizing such an overwhelmingly benevolent group of people as following "a path of hatred" is irresponsible and false.

The evil people from the church in the past 2 thousand years, were in reality, a very tiny percentage. They were not true Christians but were evil, ambitious sociopaths who used religion and any other tool as their disposal to gain power. For example, the overall number of people actually killed during the inquisition (which was clearly wrong, but was usually done for political reasons disguised as religious reasons) over hundreds of years, added together, was but a tiny fraction of the people killed IN ONE YEAR by communists including Stalin and Pol Pot, by dictators including Hitler, by intellectuals including Robespierre during the French Revolution, by the Dictator controlled Japanese army during the Nanking massacre, or even by the Hutus in the recent conflict in Rwanda. By contrast, the overall number of people who have been helped by Christianity throughout history numbers in the billions...

My point is Christianity and any other religion that preaches love and responsibility has a positive effect on society and should not be hated because of the bad actions of a tiny percentage of the religion. When dealing with any large group of people, their will always be a few bad apples, but remember to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

SIR
April 5th, 2018, 12:10 AM
Unless someone presents a reasoned argument for me to waste time watching a video I will choose not to. And so far you have not presented any reasoning to encourage me to watch the video or presented any explanation of what it might have to do with the topic.

Ha, ha... i love you too!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/e7/ad/a8e7ad39224ac10315cd22733e29849b.jpg

jar
April 5th, 2018, 04:54 AM
Unless someone presents a reasoned argument for me to waste time watching a video I will choose not to. And so far you have not presented any reasoning to encourage me to watch the video or presented any explanation of what it might have to do with the topic.

Ha, ha... i love you too!



Yet you still seem unable or unwilling to explain what the video has to do with the topic.

EricTheRed
April 5th, 2018, 06:04 PM
I understand what you are saying JAR, and I think that even if a child at an early age, is introduced to the best version of Christianity by the most well meaning and altruistic teachers, the ability of its message and corresponding faith sticking depend on the individual receiving the message. In this optimal scenario, I think you would end up with significantly more lifetime believers than normal Christian parishes achieve, but never achieve 100% success. Faith is very individual and some will choose to believe the tenets of Christianity but others will not believe, some for selfish reasons, but others for sound, logical reasons (most certainly logical to them) due to atheism or another religion.

But that is very reasonable and also desirable.

There are two connected and inseparable parts involved, those things which can be tested and verified and those things which are unevidenced. The moral system, ethical system that can be tested and does effect society would fall under the first part while concepts like any post life judgement, even the afterlife itself as well as the existence of a God or of sin or a dogma such as the Trinity all fall in the latter group.

We fail though within Christianity to teach the distinctions or necessary discrimination for the members to see and understand those facts.

I agree with the first part of your assertion but not the second. Isnt the existence of God evidenced by the miracle of life? By its Grand design? What about all of the personal testimonies by thousands of people throughout history about their interaction with God while on earth? Do you not see the creative force behind the universe? Isn't this evidence of God's existence? Isn't the fact that you are meant to be here evidence of God's existence?

Empty_of_Clouds
April 5th, 2018, 06:59 PM
I agree with the first part of your assertion but not the second. Isnt the existence of God evidenced by the miracle of life? By its Grand design? What about all of the personal testimonies by thousands of people throughout history about their interaction with God while on earth? Do you not see the creative force behind the universe? Isn't this evidence of God's existence? Isn't the fact that you are meant to be here evidence of God's existence?


The miracle of life?
Grand design?
Anecdotal and unverifiable testimonies?
Creative force behind the universe?
We're meant to be here?


None of this is evidence, but rather only your preferred interpretation (for whatever personal reasons you hold).

EricTheRed
April 5th, 2018, 08:56 PM
I agree with the first part of your assertion but not the second. Isnt the existence of God evidenced by the miracle of life? By its Grand design? What about all of the personal testimonies by thousands of people throughout history about their interaction with God while on earth? Do you not see the creative force behind the universe? Isn't this evidence of God's existence? Isn't the fact that you are meant to be here evidence of God's existence?


The miracle of life?
Grand design?
Anecdotal and unverifiable testimonies?
Creative force behind the universe?
We're meant to be here?


None of this is evidence, but rather only your preferred interpretation (for whatever personal reasons you hold).

EOC, the obviousness of these pieces of evidence is incontrovertible to any logical person. You may not subjectively find this evidence personally compelling, but you must admit it is evidence that must be considered. Please do not let your preconceived ideas and logic be at odds. See where truth lies and actively join me in its pursuit. I am also curious why you ignored the evidence of the personal testimony of thousands of people throughout history and their interactions with God? Rather than join those pseudo intellectuals who ignore compelling evidence and believe they are too intelligent to believe in God, I invite you to join beliefs with true geniuses such as Albert Einstein who famously said "we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player."

Empty_of_Clouds
April 5th, 2018, 09:15 PM
Sorry, I'm going to have to be blunt. It appears that you are misunderstanding what the term 'evidence' actually means. There is no testable, repeatable or verifiable evidence for the existence of any kind of supreme being. While I fully accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you cannot have it both ways.

If you want to harbour a belief in a supreme being, that's your prerogative and I can accept that this is your choice, but please don't try to support it by citing the term "evidence" when no actual evidence can be found.

That there are mysteries to our Universe goes without saying. However, assuming Divine intervention in light of our own ignorance of how these mysteries work is a classic example of medieval thinking. Kind of like believing Apollo dragged the Sun up into the sky each day, before discovering planetary bodies and motions.

Note: I am not knoking your right to your beliefs or faith or whatever you want to call it, just the hollow nature of your argument.

EricTheRed
April 5th, 2018, 09:57 PM
Ha, so you characterize a powerful evidentiary argument as hollow and by inference accuse Albert Einstein of medieval thinking! The aim of this discussion is not victory, but progress. I wish you well.

Empty_of_Clouds
April 5th, 2018, 11:11 PM
There is no evidential part to your argument, that is precisely why it is hollow. Einstein is well-known for wondering at the things we do not yet know. Your argument invoking his genius is an appeal to authority - a common logical fallacy.

In general, the last thing religion wants is a rigorous examination. It cannot function effectively under that kind of pressure.

I'm not seeking victory. That implies that there is some kind of gain. How do I profit from this?

jar
April 6th, 2018, 04:39 AM
I understand what you are saying JAR, and I think that even if a child at an early age, is introduced to the best version of Christianity by the most well meaning and altruistic teachers, the ability of its message and corresponding faith sticking depend on the individual receiving the message. In this optimal scenario, I think you would end up with significantly more lifetime believers than normal Christian parishes achieve, but never achieve 100% success. Faith is very individual and some will choose to believe the tenets of Christianity but others will not believe, some for selfish reasons, but others for sound, logical reasons (most certainly logical to them) due to atheism or another religion.

But that is very reasonable and also desirable.

There are two connected and inseparable parts involved, those things which can be tested and verified and those things which are unevidenced. The moral system, ethical system that can be tested and does effect society would fall under the first part while concepts like any post life judgement, even the afterlife itself as well as the existence of a God or of sin or a dogma such as the Trinity all fall in the latter group.

We fail though within Christianity to teach the distinctions or necessary discrimination for the members to see and understand those facts.

I agree with the first part of your assertion but not the second. Isnt the existence of God evidenced by the miracle of life? By its Grand design? What about all of the personal testimonies by thousands of people throughout history about their interaction with God while on earth? Do you not see the creative force behind the universe? Isn't this evidence of God's existence? Isn't the fact that you are meant to be here evidence of God's existence?

Nope. The existence of life is evidence that life exists. Personal testimony is evidence of what people claim to believe. No, I do not see the creative force behind the universe and no one has ever presented any evidence of a creative force behind the universe. And there is absolutely no evidence that I am meant to be here.

SIR
April 6th, 2018, 06:51 AM
I am also curious why you ignored the evidence of the personal testimony of thousands of people throughout history and their interactions with God?

People are easily deceived, and many people have been known to easily resort to the deception of others in pursuit of their own objectives.

Bzzer
April 6th, 2018, 10:47 AM
I don't really know why you are debating this topic, you all (including me) have an unshakeable view as to what you believe to be correct and none of you have the evidence - other than Faith or lack of it - that what you believe is correct.

And an absence of evidence does not validate the result.

SIR
April 6th, 2018, 02:32 PM
Ha, ha... i love you too!
Yet you still seem unable or unwilling to explain what the video has to do with the topic.

The way I see it, obviously with my limited perspective and knowledge, Soviet Communism would've not been without Marxism, Marxism would've not been without transcendentalism, and transcendentalism would not have been without Calvinism. The video shows a town which grew up after the fall of Czarist feudalism, and as stated already it gives very little note or even intrigue towards spiritual observance. The townsfolk, and in particular the professional trappers, show conspicuous regard for nature and the cycles of natural cause and effect. The film is called 'Happy People', they are 'poor' financially by so-called 'first world' standards but the nature of their community and existence seems to show more respect for the world/universe on a daily basis than most 'godly' people show in their short and tiny moments of individual greatness.

calamum
April 17th, 2018, 04:33 PM
That is not exactly what I was meant. In terms of their professed doctrine those bodies believe that a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

But there are non-Trinitarians who also believe that the Trinitarians have it wrong.

What makes one group correct?

That's easy. If a group's beliefs corresponded to objective reality, that would make it correct.
How to determine whether or not a belief corresponds to objective reality (i. e., is true) is another discussion, however, and when the subject matter of the belief relates to something that no one this side of the grave can have first-hand knowledge of is yet another.

Old Man
August 24th, 2018, 05:03 PM
It, in my opinion, doesn't make you anything except that you believe in god. You're ok.....



I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?

Empty_of_Clouds
August 24th, 2018, 05:26 PM
“People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.”

EricTheRed
August 26th, 2018, 12:29 PM
“People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.”

You are not the first one to notice this phenomenon of human nature EOC:

"If one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs in the world such as seemed to them the best, they would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own." Herodotus - 5BC

I have come to believe that all ideas under religious discussion, in the end, must be judged by their ability to help us live well in the long term, as a society.

SIR
August 29th, 2018, 03:38 PM
Two observations about the current Jeremy Corbyn furore (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45333268)...

People really don't understand what a 'Semite' is - how can he be anti-Semitic when he is apparently very pally with the Palestinians, who are as much Semites as any one from any of the so-called tribes of Israel?!

And... why the surprise that a fervent communist, if not actual Marxist, is anti-Zionist? As a 'good' communist he will be, of course, anti-religious - and by extension will naturally be anti the Jewish religion and anti the belief that any one 'race' is chosen by 'god' above all others and has a right to live in a particular place.


Religion is clearly a class issue - all religions have generally escalated at one point or another to the idea that they are superior to others, and within any religion there are always clear hierarchies of authority and subservience. To paraphrase Marx - religion is a psychological tool used to coerce, control, and subjugate.

adhoc
September 2nd, 2018, 12:14 PM
Now that’s funny, considering almost everyone in the communist party with any power worth mentioning in USSR was jewish.

SIR
September 6th, 2018, 01:50 AM
Now that’s funny, considering almost everyone in the communist party with any power worth mentioning in USSR was jewish.

You are talking pre-Stalin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism), of course?

TSherbs
March 2nd, 2023, 08:55 AM
moved over from another thread:


I am being honest, but it is not what you want to hear, Ted. This is quite wrong. I don't "want" anything here. You misunderstand my disagreement with what you say as a form of "wanting" you to say something else. I don't want you to say anything other than what you think. Please don't misunderstand my disagreement with your ideas with wanting you to change them. I don't care at all whether you change your ideas or not.




Suggesting that Jesus didn't care what his disciples did or thought... This is the kind of thing that I call dishonest. I did not suggest this. I did not mention Jesus. I referred to the Apostles' Creed, the oldest, most traditional profession of faith in Christian history. I reread it before I made my last post to be sure that I had it right (I had to memorize it as part of my confirmation process). These statements, according to the church fathers of the time, were the core values and statements that defined a Christian believer. I did not say and would never say that "Jesus did not care what his disciples did or thought." But the topic is whether it is fair or even accurate to decide that sinners, even great ones, can't be called "Christian." Again, my point was that if sinners cannot be classified as "Christian" if they commit sin, then there are no Christians at all on the planet. And that seems absurd as a founding premise of a world-wide faith.

Chuck Naill
March 2nd, 2023, 10:29 AM
Perhaps we are talking over each other, Ted. I have no agenda or wish to take away your individuality to think as you wish to think. I will not push or presume I have any understanding of your experiences. I realize that I didn't come to my understanding against my will.

What I will do is use the scriptures to respond because that is my sole authority, plus my experiences and stufy. If I use a writer, it will be because they refer to a scripture.

Since 2013, I have been focused on the idea of discipleship/apprenticeship with Jesus. The 2015 Evangelical debacle with Trump made me so angry that I could hardly stand it. As the scriptures say, "the anger of man will not produce the righteousness of God", so I've changed my mind and choose to focus on not being anything other than a disciple of Jesus.

I do think that the idea that Jesus gave of being able to get in on what Jesus is doing right now as a very provocative and positive idea.

TSherbs
March 2nd, 2023, 12:30 PM
Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

Chuck Naill
March 2nd, 2023, 02:09 PM
Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

TSherbs
March 2nd, 2023, 05:18 PM
Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

Why not what? Why not logically "trust" them?

If this is what you mean, well, I assume that you could answer that yourself, really. Rather than go through every "reason" that people doubt the stories of the Bible, I'll just mention this one category: miracles. There is no logical reason to accept as accurate the tellings of a series of stories that include "miraculous" events beyond the laws of nature. From the creation stories of Adam and Eve, to the lives and actions of the prophets, to the submerging of the planet in water from just 40 days of rain, to the virgin birth of Jesus, to water, wine, exorcisms, raising of the dead, wilting of trees, rolling away of the rock, and visions of epiphany, these miraculous tales logically suggest legend and mythology not an accurate history of the words and actions of persons who lived from 3000 years ago (or some such, maybe more) to 2000 years ago.

All the other logical and evidentiary reasons for doubting the accuracy of the material of the gospels and other NT writings I will leave to you to explore, if you are interested. I recommend the writings of John Dominic Crossan for a very thorough look at Biblical attestation and accuracy studies.

TSherbs
March 3rd, 2023, 11:56 AM
Who's the dufus that put these bullshit tags on some of these threads?

Chuck Naill
March 3rd, 2023, 01:36 PM
I’m fairly familiar with the revisionists, Ted. Why bring them up? Why would you think agnostics and atheists are going to provide you with an objective source? Would an antivaxer ever provide you with a reason to get vaccinated?

TSherbs
March 3rd, 2023, 06:09 PM
I’m fairly familiar with the revisionists, Ted. Why bring them up?

Simply because you asked me. Here:
Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

Chuck Naill
March 4th, 2023, 06:03 AM
We all take various paths to discover what we choose to believe. I have not found the revisionists or accommodationists to be logical because they begin with the end in mind. Some had a bad experience as with Ehrman. Or some try to make them into a modern American liberal message. Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

The New Testament books begin two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, the letters of Paul (Romans 50 AD) and his gospel message is consistent with what the four gospels say. What is paramount for me is can I experience what Paul says the disciple would experience. No one can answer that for anyone else. It is a matter of deciding to take a path and giving it enough attention.

Like you, I grew up in this and that made it easy to think I understood when I didn't. It was blind faith for many years. It was only when I made a decision to find out for myself that I began to see and experience more.

As I said before, anyone can call themselves a Christian, but not everyone can call themselves a disciple or apprentice. Not everyone even wants to. The are content with what they have and that is their chose. I make no negative judgement. Free will must be respected. It is just like when we were discussing the pandemic recommendations. I don't think either of us every wanted people forced to do something that didn't want to do.

TSherbs
March 4th, 2023, 07:21 AM
.... Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

What do you mean by "reliable"? It may be that we disagree on what this word means, but I don't know. Could you explain what you mean by it since you used it here?