| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2011 07:01:21 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wouldn't belief in the teachings of a man/entity/name/idea called Jesus Christ alone be sufficient to call oneself a christian, even if one decided to ignore the supernatural side of things? I think so. |
"ignoring the supernatural side of things" is, as the original link put it, a "redefinition". I just think it makes for a very muddy conversation if suddenly you have to ask, "wait, are you a supernatural believing Christian or not?" and of course to say that you "believe the teachings of Jesus Christ" but don't pay attention to all his talk about his Father or prayer or angels seems a bit odd as well...
I could call you a pot-smoking hippie because you espouse some of the same values as pot-smoking hippies I've met. It probably doesn't help to do that though... :) |
*Shrug* Actually I agreed with that. Maybe because I have the values of a pot smoking hippie...
By definition someone who is Christian follows Christ's teachings... No Christian I know follows all of those beliefs, including you Sneezy, so how can you disagree? They have the same broad strokes, but just disagree on the finer details of which parts of the text are inaccurate or outright wrong - that still makes them basically Christian. FYI - I pretty much like this sort of Christian, the sort that recognizes that there is a very real effect that church has upon a person, which is desirable and good, but is still able to process accurately process evidence, let's face it - in order to believe half the stuff you believe, you've got to have FAITH, screw the reason and screw the evidence, you've got faith... That's always been my problem with Christianity in general - the accepted ability to suspend thought in favor of belief... |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:02:52 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Call him what you like, but Jefferson had his own (heavily edited) Bible on his desk. To me he was a Christian, who happened to not follow a particular church's ideology. |
So when it came to the ideology of the divinity of Christ the "particular" church he didn't follow was...? :)
You guys are are funny bunch.
Anyway. In my view, if you can't cite some of the old creeds and say, "this, I believe" then you aren't a Christian. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:04:45 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by raish:
Christianity has been rethinking itself in order to fit a changing knowledge of the world etc to the scriptures, and vice versa, since the Holy Roman Empire 'defined' it. |
True, but you can't have the underlings involved in this. A religion with democratic underpinnings would seize to exist.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:04:45 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
That's always been my problem with Christianity in general - the accepted ability to suspend thought in favor of belief... |
If I had that view, I wouldn't be a Christian either. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:09:23 PM · #30 |
Whoops. I've reached my dozen post limit on a Rant thread. The police will arrive at my door at any moment. Just remember, the word "Christian" means something!
{sirens blare} |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:12:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Thomas Jefferson was apparently just such a "believer." |
He is a well known case, but generally scholars will call him a "Deist". In fact many times on this site "your side" (not necessarily you) has argued that he wasn't a "Christian". This gets brought up when someone tries to raise the position that the US was founded on Christian principles. They point to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. at which point people can't denounce the idea quickly enough. ;) |
I doubt it's faster than christians denouncing other christians. This thread is one such example. Anders Behring Breivik is another and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:13:37 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
That's always been my problem with Christianity in general - the accepted ability to suspend thought in favor of belief... |
If I had that view, I wouldn't be a Christian either. |
So, the real question is, is my view on the subject accurate? I think it is - I've reconfirmed it with many religious people, and most are perfectly willing to admit that faith is far more important, and the "evidence" is just the devil trying to trick you into leaving Jesus's side - or any one of a hundred other well rehearsed ways to rationalize the thought process that enables people to think like this. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 07:16:04 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In my view, if you can't cite some of the old creeds and say, "this, I believe" then you aren't a Christian. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Some? Shouldn't it be all? After all if Jefferson wasn't a Christian because he followed the bits he liked, picking over the Bible like a bargain hunter at a rummage sale, then shouldn't one have to follow every jot and tittle of the "old creeds" to be a "real" Christian? I'm confused. Who has the right to choose amongst the old creeds and still call themselves a Christian? Or are they all turnips?
Message edited by author 2011-08-05 19:17:56. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 08:33:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I see plenty of Christians who believe in the after life, and in miracles, they just turn their back on the golden rule, who also worship at the alter of mammon, see no reason to do good works outside their "community" (read church). These people are the false Christians to my way of thinking.
I guess the question is which is more important to be a good Christian, faith in the unseen, or works in the world we have been put on. |
Following this logic, what you're saying is that an atheist who does good things is by definition Christian? I find that offensive. |
...and by that measure, there are some who would argue that being called "amoral" because they are Atheists is also offensive.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 08:35:13 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Following this logic, what you're saying is that an atheist who does good things is by definition Christian? I find that offensive. |
+1 |
-2 :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 09:47:34 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I see plenty of Christians who believe in the after life, and in miracles, they just turn their back on the golden rule, who also worship at the alter of mammon, see no reason to do good works outside their "community" (read church). These people are the false Christians to my way of thinking.
I guess the question is which is more important to be a good Christian, faith in the unseen, or works in the world we have been put on. |
Following this logic, what you're saying is that an atheist who does good things is by definition Christian? I find that offensive. |
...and by that measure, there are some who would argue that being called "amoral" because they are Atheists is also offensive.
Ray |
Yes, you're quite right... I also find that very offensive, quite a bit more so than the original statement. |
|
|
|
08/05/2011 09:48:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Following this logic, what you're saying is that an atheist who does good things is by definition Christian? I find that offensive. |
+1 |
-2 :O)
Ray |
I think the poor doctor just got confused and forgot my reasons for finding it offensive. |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 08:12:51 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just remember, the word "Christian" means something! |
To me, this has always been the issue. What it means to one Christian may not necessarily be what it means to another. The problems arise when one Christian, or a group of them decide they want to add their own interpretation to some of the specifics. As has been discussed, ad nauseum, by many more folks than us here, interpretation seems to be the most signifigant bone of contention amongst Christians. Where I see the problem is where people forget the teachings as ascribed to Jesus, in spirit and principle, and make it more about their level of adherence to the principles the way they see them. And judging/condemning others because they don't agree.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2011 08:34:33 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wouldn't belief in the teachings of a man/entity/name/idea called Jesus Christ alone be sufficient to call oneself a christian, even if one decided to ignore the supernatural side of things? I think so. |
"ignoring the supernatural side of things" is, as the original link put it, a "redefinition". I just think it makes for a very muddy conversation if suddenly you have to ask, "wait, are you a supernatural believing Christian or not?" and of course to say that you "believe the teachings of Jesus Christ" but don't pay attention to all his talk about his Father or prayer or angels seems a bit odd as well... |
It may be odd, but you realize that cultural Jews have been having essentially that exact "muddy conversation" with each other for quite some time now. Jews don't generally seem to share the inclination of Christians to define others out of the club. Of course being a historically reviled religious minority will tend to have the effect of inclining you to embrace those that would identify with your group, regardless of whether they strictly adhere to any particular dogmatic flavor. I would guess that you get a lot more acceptance by Christians for divergent Christian theologies outside of places, like the U.S., where Christianity is the dominant religious identification.
Message edited by author 2011-08-06 08:41:07. |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 08:40:57 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just remember, the word "Christian" means something! |
Of course it does, the question is (and has always been from the earliest beginnings of the faith), what? |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 11:56:37 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just remember, the word "Christian" means something! |
Of course it does, the question is (and has always been from the earliest beginnings of the faith), what? |
I use to think it was faith + good deeds but since the only thing that actually gets you into heaven is accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior then that's all you need to be considered a Christian. Who cares what other humans in the waiting room of life calls you?
Message edited by author 2011-08-06 12:01:16.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2011 01:54:12 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just remember, the word "Christian" means something! |
Of course it does, the question is (and has always been from the earliest beginnings of the faith), what? |
I use to think it was faith + good deeds but since the only thing that actually gets you into heaven is accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior then that's all you need to be considered a Christian. Who cares what other humans in the waiting room of life calls you? |
I was going to respond to Achoo's "pot smoking hippie" bit with something similar, but then just shrugged.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2011 01:56:50 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Some? Shouldn't it be all? After all if Jefferson wasn't a Christian because he followed the bits he liked, picking over the Bible like a bargain hunter at a rummage sale, then shouldn't one have to follow every jot and tittle of the "old creeds" to be a "real" Christian? I'm confused. Who has the right to choose amongst the old creeds and still call themselves a Christian? Or are they all turnips? |
I think we've gone a tad adrift in this thread, although this comes as no surprise...
Harking back to the beginning, the question basically was "Can you call yourself a 'Christian' if you don't believe in God?", and it seems to me the obvious answer is "no". All the rest of that stuff, which creeds to follow and which to discard, and so forth and so on ad nauseum, is just smoke and mirrors, it's meaningless.
R. |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 01:58:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Some? Shouldn't it be all? After all if Jefferson wasn't a Christian because he followed the bits he liked, picking over the Bible like a bargain hunter at a rummage sale, then shouldn't one have to follow every jot and tittle of the "old creeds" to be a "real" Christian? I'm confused. Who has the right to choose amongst the old creeds and still call themselves a Christian? Or are they all turnips? |
I think we've gone a tad adrift in this thread, although this comes as no surprise...
Harking back to the beginning, the question basically was "Can you call yourself a 'Christian' if you don't believe in God?", and it seems to me the obvious answer is "no". All the rest of that stuff, which creeds to follow and which to discard, and so forth and so on ad nauseum, is just smoke and mirrors, it's meaningless.
R. |
Ah, but that answer isn't obvious at all.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2011 02:34:38 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Harking back to the beginning, the question basically was "Can you call yourself a 'Christian' if you don't believe in God?", and it seems to me the obvious answer is "no". |
It seems so to me as well. However, the original quotation was not a disbelief in God, but not believing in God as a "Supernatural Being" which is quite a different thing. Of course the term is vague and therefore subject to interpretation. If you reject Spinoza and all historical criticism of the Bible, as being at odds with any form of Christianity, then fine, those are your beliefs.
I see no reason that you can not apply rational thought to examine the texts written two millennia ago and find flaws in the authors understanding as you would in any other text written by man's hand, and yet believe there is truth in the overarching message. To my mind that is the basis of the study of Divinity in the last five hundred years. If your study leads you to understand God as a universal force rather than a corporeal entity and the teachings of Christ as the clearest avenue for understanding that force, does your disbelief in supernatural beings disbar you from your chosen faith?
Message edited by author 2011-08-06 14:36:22. |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 03:42:51 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It seems so to me as well. However, the original quotation was not a disbelief in God, but not believing in God as a "Supernatural Being" which is quite a different thing. |
I'll try to lay out my objection to this. It seems like the positive statement of belief would be "I believe in God who is not supernatural". That seems to leave the adherent with two possible beliefs.
1) God is natural. In other words, God is a physical being in the universe. He was formed by natural processes, lives by natural processes, and will die by natural processes. His power is limited to natural processes. I think this would be a radically new definition for "god" under any previous system of belief (Christian or otherwise). Can anybody come up with a previous worldview where this definition would hold? I can't.
2) God is abstract. In other words, when one says, "I believe in God." what one means is they believe in what the term "God" stands for. Generally this will be abstract but understandable ideas like "love", "justice", "mercy" etc. Again, my beef with this is that it muddies the water. Why not just say, "I believe in Love, Justice, and Mercy"? What characteristics or understanding is gained by lumping them together under a heading called "God", especially when the term has previously always been used for an entity and not an idea?
So either understanding, to me, is a poor use for the term "god" both definitionally and philosophically. In addition, either understanding is a radical departure from Christianity (either defined as the historical tenets of the religion or as the "teachings of Jesus"). It would be far better to come up with a new term for such a believer rather than try to subvert an existing term. |
|
|
|
08/06/2011 04:46:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It would be far better to come up with a new term for such a believer rather than try to subvert an existing term. |
Unlucky thirteen.
What don't die can't live. What don't live can't change. What don't change can't learn. |
|
|
|
08/07/2011 04:36:52 PM · #48 |
Rudolf Bultmann would get a kick out of this discussion.
I'm getting a kick out of it too. Protestant Liberalism tried to reinterpret the Bible 100+ years ago. This dutch pastor is just proposing a new version of it. Boring... |
|
|
|
08/07/2011 05:08:30 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Rudolf Bultmann would get a kick out of this discussion.
I'm getting a kick out of it too. Protestant Liberalism tried to reinterpret the Bible 100+ years ago. This dutch pastor is just proposing a new version of it. Boring... |
Considering the number of times that the bible has undergone review and modifications, why would you find this specific instance boring.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/07/2011 05:27:52 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Rudolf Bultmann would get a kick out of this discussion.
I'm getting a kick out of it too. Protestant Liberalism tried to reinterpret the Bible 100+ years ago. This dutch pastor is just proposing a new version of it. Boring... |
Considering the number of times that the bible has undergone review and modifications, why would you find this specific instance boring.
Ray |
The history of the Bible is always a fascinating subject, but your statement sounds like it has more teeth than it really does. As far as the question of "What books belong in the Bible?" the New Testament has been the same from when it was initially canonized in the 300s AD and has never changed. The Old Testament has some disagreement with whether the apocryphal books belong or not. They have not, however, been added and removed, added and removed.
Translational work, of course, continues through the present. The NIV just released a new version in 2011 which I have started using. Very little of substance has changed, but because English is an evolving language, the translations need to evolve as well. And, of course, the number of languages the Bible has been translated into grows by the year. Wiki quotes a current number of 1,185 languages.
Message edited by author 2011-08-07 17:29:37. |
|
