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 17:02:16 GMT -4
You're whichever you self-identify as. Does this mean you're finally going to accept it when people self-identify as atheists?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2008 2:01:13 GMT -4
You're whichever you self-identify as. Does this mean you're finally going to accept it when people self-identify as atheists? What do you mean by "accept?"
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 27, 2008 9:40:08 GMT -4
Does this mean you're finally going to accept it when people self-identify as atheists? What do you mean by "accept?" It means not acting like you know more about their beliefs than they do. It means not trying to persuade them they are wrong or mistaken or confused. It means allowing them to believe what they want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 27, 2008 20:36:59 GMT -4
My strict definition is that anyone who believes Jesus was the divine Son of God is a Christian. The Arian Christians, during the early history of Christianity, stressed the human rather than the divide nature of Yeshu ha-Nosri. For a while, at least, it seemed like Arianism would become the dominant form of Christianity. Of course, we can keep the definition simply by defining the Arians as non-Christians I suppose there is a continuum of belief. Certainly Moslems believe that Yeshu ha-Nosri is a prophet, not a divine being, and yet in Dante's Divine Comedy, Moslems are in the sixth (I think - need to check the number, but for sure, it is close to the middle) circle of hell, reserved for mis-believers, rather than the outer circle, reserved for non-believers. So Dante seemed to consider Moslems to be bad Christians rather than non-Christians
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2008 23:00:11 GMT -4
It means not acting like you know more about their beliefs than they do. Have I said I know more about the beliefs of atheists than they do? I have said that I don't think there are very many "real" atheists - that is, people who really believe there is not just no traditional God, but nothing at all resembling a creator figure or universal spirit. A little poll I pulled up a while ago backs me up a bit on this- there were quite a few self-identified "atheists" who in fact said they do believe in some form of God. My personal experience is also that most atheists in fact are against the idea of organized religion, not the idea that some form of God exists. So I have to call it like I see it. Sure, they're welcome to call themselves atheists, and I won't grudge them the label, but I probably will ask them to explain what it means to them, and may even tell them that it doesn't fit with what I usually call an atheist. You definitely mean something different than I do about the term "accept" then. I'll accept that anyone who identifies himself as a Christian is such, but that doesn't mean I also accept everything they believe under that label as correct. And that applies to atheists too. It certainly doesn't mean I won't try to explain my own beliefs to them, which might indeed lead them to eventually believe that they were previously wrong, mistaken, or confused. How am I stopping anyone from believing what they want to believe? By presenting a different set of ideas?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2008 23:01:55 GMT -4
I suppose there is a continuum of belief. Certainly Moslems believe that Yeshu ha-Nosri is a prophet, not a divine being, and yet in Dante's Divine Comedy, Moslems are in the sixth (I think - need to check the number, but for sure, it is close to the middle) circle of hell, reserved for mis-believers, rather than the outer circle, reserved for non-believers. So Dante seemed to consider Moslems to be bad Christians rather than non-Christians I was well aware that Islam regards Jesus as a prophet, and so by the strictest definition Muslims regard themselves as following the teachings of Jesus, but Mohammed is the pre-eminent figure for them, and they would probably be preferred to be identified as Muslims rather than Christians. So I do.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2008 14:48:28 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. Disputes, or even possibly agreements. But if you're not going to apply some standard as to what those teachings actually are, then why bother with claiming to follow them? It really seems like your definition of Christian is designed to let outsiders imagine their own idea of what you really believe, while simultaneously avoiding any concrete discussion about what you really believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 28, 2008 14:53:52 GMT -4
But if you're not going to apply some standard as to what those teachings actually are, then why bother with claiming to follow them? Because even the broad definition I use is still adequate to differentiate between Christians and members of other world faiths, such as Muslims or Hindus. Oh I'm perfectly happy to discuss what I believe with anyone who asks. It's just that there is enough variation in what different Christians believe that just saying "I'm Christian" isn't enough to tell anyone what you believe. Certainly it will not tell anyone why you are a Mormon or Roman Catholic instead of an Episcopalian or Jehovah's Witness.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 30, 2008 16:18:56 GMT -4
Fair enough.
My point is simply this: "Because they claim to be" is not an adequate justification for considering anybody a member of some group.
You stipulate that there is a general definition of Christianity that encompasses Mormons, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jehova's Witnesses. Then, by implication, you also stipulate that this definition is "anybody who claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ".
But this definition is actually not agreed upon by the four groups you claim are covered by this definition. So there's one way in which it is not an adequate definition.
It also fails to consider the case where someone is mistaken about the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the case where someone is lying about their true beliefs.
It also, as a rational matter, is a meaningless definition. What, exactly, are the teachings of Christ, that you should claim to follow them? What, exactly, is the public perception of the teachings of Christ, that simply claiming to follow them is an adequate identifier to "outsiders"?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 30, 2008 17:05:26 GMT -4
My point is simply this: "Because they claim to be" is not an adequate justification for considering anybody a member of some group. It depends on the nature of the group. A very specific group can have a stricter definition. "Christians" are simply a very diverse and broad group. Actually I came out and said that anybody who claims to be following the teachings of Jesus (not even Jesus Christ, actually) is someone I consider a Christian. As there is no consensus on who has the authority to determine the proper interpretation of Christian teachings amongst the various branches of Christiainity there can be no consensus on a strict definition of Christianity either. If tomorrow we all agreed that the Pope or the President of the LDS Church was the person authorized to act as God's representative on Earth then he could determine for us all a strict definition of Christian. Until that day we're better off trying to get along, and using a broad definition of Christian, rather than trying to exclude individual branches of Christianity. In such cases I would say "this person is a Christian but has some strange ideas that I disagree with," or in the later case "this person is a hypocrite who claims to be a Christian." It isn't meaningless, it's just not very detailed.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 5, 2008 18:32:29 GMT -4
I'd say if a person that 1) Believes Jesus* is his savior...the specific tiny details being unimportant in the grand scheme 2) Believes Jesus died for our sins...again specific stories and legends are unimportant and finally 3) Believes Jesus is the final Prophet, at least, and in the vast majority "flavors"(sects sounds too cultish to me lol) believes he was indeed the son of God and a divine being.
I believe none of the above.
*And I'd imagine we all know his name was mistranslated/transliterated, the closest modern english name would be "Joshua" IIRC
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 5, 2008 19:51:16 GMT -4
Although I don't consider myself a Christian, I certainly appreciate those of the faith who are as tolerant and peaceful as it seems Jesus probably was. Almost all faiths have had "saints' (to borrow from the Christian lexicon...the mostly good folks) as well as "demons...evil doers"...and sincerity and devotion have never meant the devotee was necessarily a just and capable person/leader/whatever (and so the leader has fallen into the later category, what I call a religious "user"...now they may well be sincere and think they are right. But history and human frailties of the character being capable of the worst excesses in a leader,well, you'll have that).
I make no judgments of different faiths; I can only judge the people that profess they adhere to God's (by whatever name or names) word, and try to fight my way through multiple translations of the various texts.
Some would say I am lost; I wholeheartedly disagree, for this quest...misguided it may be, in that I'll never find any facts...hell I take what I like from all religions for my own philosophy, tweaked for reality of course, and run with it.
I know what some would say, I'm here, I'm there...maybe I'm just trying to cover all my bases lol
Oh by the way, Mormons, Later Day Saints...as Christian as ANY of you naysayers, probably MORE so in the main, TODAY (Yes I know the history). They actually believe the average Joe or Jane can be a prophet, and ARE.
This isn't to defend LDS in all it's history, Holy Smokes no, but I doubt any practitioner today, in the mainstream teachings and dogma,could in any way be judged for some of that Christian sect's early excesses.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 6, 2008 11:11:10 GMT -4
I'd say if a person that 1) Believes Jesus* is his savior...the specific tiny details being unimportant in the grand scheme 2) Believes Jesus died for our sins...again specific stories and legends are unimportant and finally 3) Believes Jesus is the final Prophet, at least, and in the vast majority "flavors"(sects sounds too cultish to me lol) believes he was indeed the son of God and a divine being. Most Christians believe the Apostles were inspired of God, and they were around after Jesus. If you accept only Jesus as the "final prophet" then you'll have to reject most of the New Testament, since everything after the four Gospels is about the Apostles and their ministry, mostly stuff by Paul. Yes, "Yeshua" might be closer to the name he actually went by, but the Greek form "Jesus" has the advantage that everyone knows who you're talking about.
|
|