Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tristan Scott · 03-13-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
I'm not saying there aren't modern liberal theologians who believe as King did -- I'm simply saying that if they believe that and still call themselves Christian, they're contradicting themselves.

I disagree. Christian is a label that can mean whatever the person using it to identify themselves wants it to mean. I'm sure MLK considered himself a Christian, he was an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Church, yet you will find that he apparently did not believe in a lot of the magic. He did, however believe in the teachings of Jesus, which in his eyes made him a "Christian". What about Unitarians? Are they not Christians? I agree that fundamentalists would question whether they are Christians or not, but most fundies I have talked to question whether Catholics are Christians as well. I think it is up to an individual to define his or her religion.

What about Episcopalians for chrissake?

Llyricist · 03-13-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
I disagree. Christian is a label that can mean whatever the person using it to identify themselves wants it to mean. I'm sure MLK considered himself a Christian, he was an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Church, yet you will find that he apparently did not believe in a lot of the magic. He did, however believe in the teachings of Jesus, which in his eyes made him a "Christian". What about Unitarians? Are they not Christians? I agree that fundamentalists would question whether they are Christians or not, but most fundies I have talked to question whether Catholics are Christians as well. I think it is up to an individual to define his or her religion.

What about Episcopalians for chrissake?

In one respect you are right, however, if it is the case that Christian means whatever the person wants it to mean, then it actually renders the word meaningless. If you follow the logic... a word that can mean anything is a useless word, If the person you are communicateing with has no way of knowing what you mean by that word until you define it, why bother using it?

Gawen · 03-13-2004, 02:49 PM

Llyricist beat me to it....but I guess that's why they call them Christian sects. I understand Nom too. If he meditates and does yoga, does this make him a Buddist?

It seems to me that when someone says he takes certain passages out of the bible because he thinks they are good...a good way to live for example, but yet shuns the divine aspects of it, he can't really call himself a Christian of any sect. All he can say is "I live by certain Christian aspects".
The same could be said for any person who adopts few certain beliefs or actions of the Cherokee nation. He may live to protect his resources on earth. He may even find certain sayings good to live by, but he is not a Cherokee nor is he observing the Cherokee belief system, only aspects of it.

The term 'Christian' is almost always used as a 'lump sum' term...meaning all Christian. I reckon that can't be helped unless the term can be further defined into the particular sects while debating. Just one more thing we have to muddle through in our search for the truth...

Nom · 03-13-2004, 04:09 PM

Gawen and Llyricist beat me to it

. I'd just add that Tristan is right that an individual can define his or her religion -- but if you're going to identify with a particular group (Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, etc.), a point comes where you can redefine no further and still remain part of that group. The Unitarians are actually a perfect example. See http://www.uufhc.net/s021117.html Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

As politics would have it, when Christianity became more popular and compelling to the masses, the Holy Roman Emperors saw opportunities for government. Enter Constantine, who believed in ruling by absolutism. By the time he became emperor, the debates about Jesus were heated, causing much strife and confusion amongst church leaders. So the Council of Nicea was called to order staging a debate of two main points of view:

1. Jesus, though different than humans, was made by God to walk amongst us and teach by the living of his life how we could all walk the way of the Peaceable Kingdom, and
2. Jesus was not made but actually a parcel of God, begotten from the Original Essence, not made.

For those of you familiar with the Nicene creed, "Begotten not made" won out. Christianity became the accepted religion of the Holy Roman Empire and all those believing other than the Nicene creed were deemed heretics....As you've probably figured by now, our Unitarian and Universalist forebears were primarily Christians who were deemed heretics, ones who would argue the meanings of Jesus' life and of creeds and practices. Some found pockets of civilization where there was relative freedom of speech, others spent much of their lives fleeing one inquisition or another, and some were killed, imprisoned, exiled or excommunicated.

In other words, the Unitarians' forebears were kicked out of Christianity precisely because they didn't buy the Jesus-as-God bit. The quest for wisdom didn't end because of that, and they still employed "Christian" scripture on their journey -- as can anyone -- but they had to hoist a new banner.

spin · 03-13-2004, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
And yes, oh sarcastic one, I know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is, and I haven't committed it.

It would have saved us a lot of discourse had you demonstrated said knowledge in the post which started this digression rather than going off on a tangent which you have continued further doing.

spin

Tristan Scott · 03-14-2004, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
In one respect you are right, however, if it is the case that Christian means whatever the person wants it to mean, then it actually renders the word meaningless. If you follow the logic... a word that can mean anything is a useless word, If the person you are communicateing with has no way of knowing what you mean by that word until you define it, why bother using it?

A useless word? Maybe, but the fact of the matter is there are many people who call themselves Christian who do not believe in the the devinity of Jesus. In fact I would venture to speculate that in the privacy of their own thoughts a significant percentage of them at least question it. As I said earlier, the ancient Jews and Christians used allegory to convey their "truths". Modern adherents, and evidently non-adherents to the faith seem to have a hard time accepting that. As far as non-adherents go, I'm sure that there is a comfort level involved in arguing against wild eyed fundies clinging to this fairy tale frought with magic and supernatural holy ghosts, etc.

Tristan Scott · 03-14-2004, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gawen
It seems to me that when someone says he takes certain passages out of the bible because he thinks they are good...a good way to live for example, but yet shuns the divine aspects of it, he can't really call himself a Christian of any sect. All he can say is "I live by certain Christian aspects".

Oh? Just where is Jesus' divinity explained fully in the bible? Ever since the idea of Jesus being god first cropped up there have been Christians who rejected it and followed only the teachings.

Tristan Scott · 03-14-2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
In other words, the Unitarians' forebears were kicked out of Christianity precisely because they didn't buy the Jesus-as-God bit. The quest for wisdom didn't end because of that, and they still employed "Christian" scripture on their journey -- as can anyone -- but they had to hoist a new banner.

Who kicked them out? The Catholics? The Methodists? Unitarians today consider themselves Christians. There is no governing body of all Christians who decides who is and who isn't.

Nom · 03-14-2004, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
It would have saved us a lot of discourse had you demonstrated said knowledge in the post which started this digression rather than going off on a tangent which you have continued further doing.

The tangent is the demonstration, spin; perhaps I erred in not stating that more explicitly. In order to commit the no true Scotsman fallacy, I have to have redefined the word Christian (presumably into something that proves my point) and done so for no good reason but to exclude possible objections. What I've since tried to show is that I have not redefined the term -- in fact, I'm simply applying the definition provided by Christians themselves -- and that there is good reason to draw the line between Christianity and non-Christianity at belief in Jesus' divinity, namely 17 centuries of tradition going back to Council of Nicea, where that doctrine, and modern Christianity, emerged.

capnkirk · 03-14-2004, 08:04 AM

Does not the wide diversity of the beliefs of those who call themselves Xtians demonstrate the futility of finding a single definition of the word Christian? Why then all the energy spent here trying to attach LABELS to people? It can only be so that one can apply a "one size fits all" response...well, that prospect is just as futile as the search to find a label is.

This has drifted a long way from the OP.

03-14-2004, 08:04 AM	#80
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Enough already!! Does not the wide diversity of the beliefs of those who call themselves Xtians demonstrate the futility of finding a single definition of the word Christian? Why then all the energy spent here trying to attach LABELS to people? It can only be so that one can apply a "one size fits all" response...well, that prospect is just as futile as the search to find a label is. This has drifted a long way from the OP.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2004, 02:49 PM	#73
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	Llyricist beat me to it....but I guess that's why they call them Christian sects. I understand Nom too. If he meditates and does yoga, does this make him a Buddist? It seems to me that when someone says he takes certain passages out of the bible because he thinks they are good...a good way to live for example, but yet shuns the divine aspects of it, he can't really call himself a Christian of any sect. All he can say is "I live by certain Christian aspects". The same could be said for any person who adopts few certain beliefs or actions of the Cherokee nation. He may live to protect his resources on earth. He may even find certain sayings good to live by, but he is not a Cherokee nor is he observing the Cherokee belief system, only aspects of it. The term 'Christian' is almost always used as a 'lump sum' term...meaning all Christian. I reckon that can't be helped unless the term can be further defined into the particular sects while debating. Just one more thing we have to muddle through in our search for the truth...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.