Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 25, 2008 16:48:42 GMT -4
If we define "christian" as "anybody who claims to be a christian", then while the definition is trivially correct, it's also practically meaningless. Only in trying to distinguish between individual branchs of Christianity. It's still quite useful in distinguishing Christians from members of other faiths - Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, etc. - which was really the original purpose in calling people "Christians" in the first place. The term originated among non-Christians and was originally a pejorative (just like "Mormon", actually). True, but I don't think the term should be used to diferentiate between different definitions of Christianity. That's why all the different Christian sects have their own distinguishing names. That's because doctors and engineers are occupations licensed by governments. Being a member of a religious group isn't an issue for government regulation and shouldn't be. Individual faiths might license their members, or deny someone membership, but they can't deny someone the label of "Christian" unless everyone recognizes that they are the authoritative body which decides what Christian means, which is not the case for any church. Not at all. Bhuddism is Bhuddism. Whether individuals properly understand it or not should have no bearing on whether it is worthwhile. I would say that many Christians don't understand much of what I would consider correct Christian doctrine. That has no bearing on whether I should be a Christian or claim I am such. "Christian" should not be considered a title. It's a descriptive term. It's like saying a person is blonde, or American, or a Trekker. I can outline the differences from your list of Protestent beliefs if you like. Claiming we are both Christian doesn't mean there are no differences between our faiths or that those differences are irrelevent to us, merely that we have more in common with each other than we do with an entirely different faith like Islam or Bhuddism, and that is neither dishonest nor confused.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 17:59:14 GMT -4
Except that these terms have specific definitions and meanings. There may be dispute or confusion about these definitions and meanings, but nobody denies that people must meet certain criteria to be accurately described by these terms. A Frenchman can't be an American simply by claiming to be an American: He actually has to be an American and not be a Frenchman. There is likely some dispute over exactly which shades of color are "blonde" and which are "brunette", but a brunette can't be a blonde simply by claiming to be. At best she can attempt to argue that by some worthwhile definition of hair colors, hers qualifies as blonde. Baldly demanding that chestnut-brown count as blonde because she says it does is not enough. And what would you make of a self-proclaimed "trekker" who turned out to passionately pursue all things Star Wars and didn't know Mister Spock from Doctor Spock?
Argument by analogy is difficult, though, because analogies break down, and its easy to dismiss them by focusing on the breakdown rather than the analogous portion.
My point with doctors and engineers, like yours with blondes and Americans and trekkers, is not that they're licensed, but that there are specific, meaningful definitions for those descriptors, and one cannot accurately describe themselves by those terms, unless they also meet those definitions.
And you miss my point about "worthwhileness" as well. If I say that "Buddhism" means whatever I want it to mean, regardless of what other people may mean by it, then there's no point in me claiming to be a Buddhist at all. Why should I describe myself as a Buddhist, if that will just give people the wrong idea about my beliefs? Why not simply describe myself as a Stutefishian, since that is what I really mean anyway?
I have no reason to call myself a Buddhist, unless I place some value on a definition of Buddhism that is true whether I believe it or not; or unless I wish those who do place some value on such a definition to think of me as meeting that definition.
If I proclaimed "I'm a painter: I write and perform pieces for the acoustic guitar, but that's okay, because a painter is anything I define it to be", what would be the point? Why not simply call myself a guitarist? How does it help to say that at least I'm helping scientists and professors and mechanics to identify me as an artist rather than as a member of their own trade or profession? And how does it make me a painter, when my definition of painter is truly at odds with the definition accepted by other painters. You can't be a painter simply by defining a painter to be whatever you are. Either the definition is true whether you like it or not, or there's no point in having one at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 25, 2008 18:35:15 GMT -4
I was brought up a Roman Catholic and baptized as such. It seemed that even after I left the church and became a quasi-Buddhist my family still considered me a RC. My grandmother would say, "But you were baptized", suggesting that it was impossible for me to believe any other way, or even if I did, I was still a RC. For years I never let her know that sometimes I ate meat on Good Friday.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 25, 2008 18:42:49 GMT -4
Except that these terms have specific definitions and meanings. And I have a specific definition for "Christian" too: "someone who claims to be following Jesus' teachings." Going any further than that gets you unavoidably into the disputes of what those teachings actually are. I would figure that he never watched the original series and is also a Star Wars fan, but I would not exclude him from self-identifying as a "Trekker". (Trekker is the best of the three analogies, since it doesn't involve physical characteristics or government-recognized nationalities.) Well, I would agree in such a case that you have no real reason to call yourself a Budhist, but I wouldn't deny you the right to loudly proclaim yourself a Budhist if you wanted to. It's not like I would be giving you any special recognition by letting you do so. What skin is it off my nose if you want to call yourself a Buddhist? But you can't absolutely define a painter by what other painters accept either. One painter may think that the only true painter is an artist who does landscapes. Another may think that painters are guys who paint barns, and that portrait painters are really "aritsts". You might be able to define a painter by asking a bunch of non-painters what a painter is, but it's simpler to say "he claims that he works with paint, so he's a painter." Likewise a group of Muslims will simply say "He says he believes in Jesus, so he's a Christian." and not concern themselves with whether he "really" believes in Jesus, or if he has all his facts about Jesus straight.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 25, 2008 18:45:27 GMT -4
I still don't see how anyone can be a Christian if they don't believe Jesus is God. That's why I left the RC church - worshipping Jesus as God seemed wrong. Well, there were other reasons too but... By your definition, I could almost be a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 25, 2008 18:51:55 GMT -4
I don't really have a desire to be engulved in the discussion, but Buddhism is quite flexible.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 26, 2008 1:36:56 GMT -4
I still don't see how anyone can be a Christian if they don't believe Jesus is God. That's why I left the RC church - worshipping Jesus as God seemed wrong. Well, there were other reasons too but... By your definition, I could almost be a Christian. The idea is that there might be some people out there who recognize Jesus as a great moral teacher without believing he had anything divine about him. If they like his teachings and try to live by them then they would be Christians in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2008 7:43:53 GMT -4
It's the falling out of that relationship between creator and created. I guess for me, that would mean falling out of a relationship with....a supernova?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 26, 2008 8:09:10 GMT -4
The idea is that there might be some people out there who recognize Jesus as a great moral teacher without believing he had anything divine about him. If they like his teachings and try to live by them then they would be Christians in my book. So you would accept that someone could be both a Christian and an atheist? On those grounds I appear to qualify. What if you also recognise Buddha or Confucius or Socrates as great moral teachers?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 26, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -4
If you call yourself a Doctor or an Engineer, people will have expectations based on the title that you will be able to perform various services and/or give reliable advice for which you can expect to be legally accountable...
If you call yourself a christian, there's no particular reason why anyone should care: there's no reason for them to expect you to behave any better, or indeed differently, to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 26, 2008 13:26:42 GMT -4
If you call yourself a Doctor or an Engineer, people will have expectations based on the title that you will be able to perform various services and/or give reliable advice for which you can expect to be legally accountable... If you call yourself a christian, there's no particular reason why anyone should care: there's no reason for them to expect you to behave any better, or indeed differently, to anyone else. If someone identifies them to me as a Christian, I do have preconceived notions, bias's (?) and expectations. Especially if that information is disclosed on first meeting. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 26, 2008 13:30:31 GMT -4
The idea is that there might be some people out there who recognize Jesus as a great moral teacher without believing he had anything divine about him. If they like his teachings and try to live by them then they would be Christians in my book. So you would accept that someone could be both a Christian and an atheist? On those grounds I appear to qualify. What if you also recognise Buddha or Confucius or Socrates as great moral teachers? No, you'd be a Buddhistian, Confuciustian or Socratrian. ;D I should be a Omniian.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 26, 2008 14:09:43 GMT -4
The idea is that there might be some people out there who recognize Jesus as a great moral teacher without believing he had anything divine about him. If they like his teachings and try to live by them then they would be Christians in my book. So you would accept that someone could be both a Christian and an atheist? Yes. Although I would think you're missing all the best parts of being a Christian in also being an atheist. You're whichever you self-identify as.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 26, 2008 14:13:12 GMT -4
That's "biases," Ginnie. Surely you learned "es" for pluralization in school!
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 26, 2008 15:44:24 GMT -4
That's "biases," Ginnie. Surely you learned "es" for pluralization in school! That was a long time ago...
|
|