Definition of Christian

[matteob]

@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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Too funny.

??



Sent from my BLU ADVANCE 5.0 HD using Tapatalk

[jar]

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]

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]

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]

Those who are dismissive of other opinions and thought would do well to access, read and process this:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...EB58411A554C17


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.