christ-on-a-stick

This has been tumbling about in my head for some time so I thought I'd open up the query to any and all who have thoughts about it.

I've noticed that we have a handful of theists on this board who self-identify as "Christian", and yet:

1) Don't believe in biblical inerrancy
2) Don't believe in Creationism
3) Don't believe in "exclusive salvation" (i.e. only Christians will
get to heaven, in opposition to Jesus' "I am the way the
truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me...")
4) Don't believe in the inspiration of the teachings of Paul (i.e.
women not speaking in church, keeping their heads covered,
etc. etc.)
3) Don't believe in a literal hell

...among other things.

My question is, in consideration of the fact that for however-many-years past, the term "Christian" has traditionally encompassed belief in these things, and that even today the sizeable majority of the Christian church holds to these tenets - what is the point of identifying oneself as "Christian" when you are basically picking and choosing the few things that you like and tossing the rest out? This would also apply to people who identify as Catholic but nonetheless disregard the RC's teachings on birth control, homosexuality, etc.

Why not just make up your own name for whatever your personal philosophy is, or foregoing adoption of a "label" whatsoever???

It seems to me that it would be like me claiming to be a Buddhist but saying that I don't believe in karma, nirvana or the eight-fold path. It would be more genuine, IMO, for me to say "I am interested in Eastern philosophy".

Thoughts?

Psycho Economist

I call bullshit on:

"The church" took its sweet time in trying to organize what was in the Bible and what isn't, and has been playing word games with it since the day they closed the cannon. Consequently, the rest of your points don't necessarily follow. That said, with the invention of the printing press and the advent of wide-spread literacy, I don't know what the excuse is... except they don't like what's actually in the book that claims to be the perfect word of God.

The whole thing is a perfect picture of my girlfriend, for whatever that's worth.

First, Christianity (i.e. possessing the attribute of being "Christian") is a positive thing in the west today, so plenty of people (even closet atheists) have lots of motives to conflate Christianity to some meaning that applies to themselves.

Second, Christianity is an important part of people's personal identity. In their notion of who they are, they have a line that says "I'm Christian" and they don't feel compelled to examine it. Again, since they can define Christian for themselves however they want (church membership, belief in the resurrection, god is love, whatever) and not be called on it, they can keep this entry in their self-definition intact. Conversely, it would be very tormenting for most to try and change that part of their self-identity, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Lastly, I'm sure there are a small number of people who hope that if they can say "I'm Christian" with a straight face they'll get into heaven, regardless of their nitty-gritty beliefs.

-RRH-

To a certain extent, I'm not so sure they are picking-and-choosing any more than mainline Christians, they just use different criteria for how they choose things. I think I respect someone who uses their own reasoning and feelings for their criteria more than I respect someone who uses "well, my priest told me" as their main criteria.

Of course, if we completely throw out the defining characteristics of "Christian" then it becomes a useless term.

I think the one thing that self-proclaimed Christians hold in common is the belief that Jesus' teachings coincide with their religious viewpoints. Whether they think Jesus was God or a man, whether they think the bible accurately reflects his teachings or not, whether they think Jesus has provided further revelation through the One True Church or through individual communication, they will view "What Jesus Taught" as the best stamp of approval.

Where all the variation comes from is that nobody agrees on precisely what Jesus taught.

Old Man

I agree with a lot of what has been posted above. But one must remember that "Christian" was an appellation first coined by non-Christians of believers.

Act 11:26 And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


Today it is almost meaningless, because it is applied indiscriminately to who ever wants to label themselves as a "Christian".

In the bible, what is important, is not whom the world regards as a Christian, but whom you and your church regard as Christians.

In regard to the speciifc points in the post:
The bible does not claim to be "inerrant", and in any case the modern bible composition is a production of men. There is no warrant from any apostle or Christ to confirm that the composition of the modern bible is correct, and there are books like 1 Enoch whose omission from the modern bible the apostles would be surprised at.

Nevertheless, the bible ought to be regarded as inspired by any true believer, and anyone who unreasonably denigrates it is unlikely to be a Christian.
Creationism is one biblical interpretation (of several), and nothing to do with Christianity as such.
Christians are commanded not to judge unbelievers, especially those who have never heard the gospel. All men will be judged for their sins, and the unrepentant cannot be saved.
Those who reject Paul are very foolish. They propably ought to be ranked amongst the "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2Cr 11:13), Paul often refered to.
That is fairly definitive of rejection of Christ.

Sabine Grant

OLD MAN : I may agree with some of your arguments but denominations who have liberalized Paul's teachings on the head covering for women for example are IMO not rejecting Paul. They have determined that bondage to the law is not a requirement anylonger thru the last Covenant of Christ.
Therefor, several instructions found in the early church are now challenged thru Christ Himself. Which is to be the most important message to a self proclaimed christian in your opinion?

Old Man

The problem you have is that those laws which are found in Genesis are regarded by Paul as the foundation of his theology. The entrance of sin into the world (the law of sin), death being consequent upon sin (the law of death), the fact that a wife remains bound to a husband as long as he lives (the law of marriage), and the submission of women to men (the law of God's creation order), are all based upon early Genesis.

And of the law he said: "(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)" 1 Cor 9;21.

So I cannot see how any believer can use Christ to defeat Paul.

christ-on-a-stick

Psycho Economist,

Point well taken. In light of the facts that you posted (about the church's long history of fiddlin' around with it and engaging in heavy semantic quibbling even after the cannon was established) I'll change my list to just:

1) Don't believe in Creationism
2) Don't believe in "exclusive salvation" (i.e. only Christians will
get to heaven, in opposition to Jesus' "I am the way the
truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me...")
3) Don't believe in the inspiration of the teachings of Paul (i.e.
women not speaking in church, keeping their heads covered,
etc. etc.)
4) Don't believe in a literal hell

...among other things.

My questions remain the same really... I am very interested in hearing from our resident theists who fall into this category.

Old Man, if you must know I am not surprised by your views on the subject since you are, for all practical purposes, the closest thing to a True Christian I have ever encountered. Unfortunately, that's as far from a compliment as I can come, regardless of how you take it. But I'm still looking forward to getting a response from you on the "Biblical Rape" thread in MF&P, regarding your blatant contradiction of yourself in 2 separate posts.

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
This has been tumbling about in my head for some time so I thought I'd open up the query to any and all who have thoughts about it.

I've noticed that we have a handful of theists on this board who self-identify as "Christian", and yet:

1) Don't believe in biblical inerrancy

My view is more generic. Christian is a worshipper of one Jesus Christ who was god-human, son of a virgin, died and resurrected.
Belief in bible inerrancy is not a requirement of Christianity. The Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant. Intelligent reading of it proves that it is very errant. Only an intellectually blind fool can read it an not see the errors and contradictions. That is why the Catholic church long ago told people not to read it, but accept the Pope's interpretation of its teachings.

2) Don't believe in Creationism

The Bible says that God created. It doesn't say how. It gives two different primitive creation myths with different sequences. One has to be wrong or both wrong, but both cannot be right. Besides given the contradictory nature of Genesis 1 and 2, it leaves interpretion wide open. Scientific findings in palaoentology, geology, plate tectonics, and continental drift, radioisotope dating, and recent giant leaps in genome mapping, have made Evolution fact not just Scientific Theory. The Human Genome is a history book of our evolution from 500 million years until now. Denial of such data in favour of magical creation is ludricous to a clear thinker. Here Christianity divides between more enlightened, mostly European, liberal Christians whose beliefs are clearly different from American Fundamentalists. European Christians, a big majority, accept Evolution. American Fundamentalists do not. Part of that is the science illiteracy in America and also the teaching in fundamentalist families and schools to reject science in favour of Biblical myth.

3) Don't believe in "exclusive salvation" (i.e. only Christians will get to heaven, in opposition to Jesus' "I am the way the
truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me...")

Again, if you define a christian as a biblical literalist (fundamentalist), they would not be Christians. We already know the arrogance of fundmentalists that they are the only true christians. What it means to me is that fundamentalists are the most ignorant, narrow minded, and intolerant of various Christians. A christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ. It is the intolerant fundies who claim that they are the only ones with the right to the title, christian. It is simple arrogance based on ignorance.

4) Don't believe in the inspiration of the teachings of Paul (i.e.
women not speaking in church, keeping their heads covered,
etc. etc.)

Again, see the previous answer. Not all who claim to believe in Christ and are Christians in my opinion, believe the literal interpretation of Paul. In reality, Paul was a quite barmy fellow, whose hatred of women was part of his primary mental illness, a fluctuating psychosis in the setting of temporal lobe epilepsy.

3) Don't believe in a literal hell

The Jews didn't believe in Hell. The idea came from the Zoroastrian Persians and found its way into the Roman Empire and Chrsitianity through Mithraism, a branch of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a dualism of Good and Evil Gods, Heaven and Hell, and a final battle between both at Judgment day. This passed into Christianity.


My question is, in consideration of the fact that for however-many-years past, the term "Christian" has traditionally encompassed belief in these things, and that even today the sizeable majority of the Christian church holds to these tenets - what is the point of identifying oneself as "Christian" when you are basically picking and choosing the few things that you like and tossing the rest out? This would also apply to people who identify as Catholic but nonetheless disregard the RC's teachings on birth control, homosexuality, etc.

Christianity evolved like all religions do. The tenets you quoted fit with 16th century heretical protestant movements and perhaps at its birth with Constantine in 324 CE. But even religions change. They add new ideas, discard old discredited ideas. British Christianity has adapted to new learning in the sciences. Anglicans accept evolution, a 4.5 billion year old spherical earth in a Heliocentric Solar system, and some question the divinity of Jesus, and ordain women. I am an Atheist with nothing to gain, but I consider them to be what they say they are, Christians.

Why not just make up your own name for whatever your personal philosophy is, or foregoing adoption of a "label" whatsoever???

You have that right. Many may disagree, but who gives a feck. In this case I think anyone who worships Jesus or even follows the teachings of Jesus in some whay have a perfect right to call themselves Christians, and I recognise them as such. Fundamentalists have no copyright on "Christian." In fact, Fundamentalism is the easiest to refute because it is based on the extemely flawed Bible. Paine devasted it in "Age of Reason." He would not have such an easy time of it on the more enlightened liberal Christianity of today which has less dependence on primitive superstition.

It seems to me that it would be like me claiming to be a Buddhist but saying that I don't believe in karma, nirvana or the eight-fold path. It would be more genuine, IMO, for me to say "I am interested in Eastern philosophy".

Well, it depends on how rigid you are with the requirements of being a buddhist? If you are rigid then your hypothesis is right. If you are intellectually flexible and open to ideas then you are mistaken.

Fiach

My Church:

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pu...sp?id_=1411479

-RRH-

This actually seems to be a pretty common thing for new religious movements. I think it might be a way to play with the us-vs-them mentality. If a group refuses to identify itself, then only the members of that group know who is "us" and who is "them" which gives them a tactical benefit over potential converts.

Likewise, there are a lot of subgroups within Christianity which refuse to identify their subgroup. One such group I've dealt with is called the "Local Church Movement" but that's only what other people call them. They call themselves "Christians."

Old Man

People are always claiming that, but I've yet to see any evidence. The first direct allusion to hell that I am aware of is:

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

How is this connected to Zoroastrianism. I am sure that the Psalms contain many indirect references too. The doctrine of hell was certainly widespread amongst the Jews by BC160, and rose to prominence after the depradations of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Not that I am aware of. The gnostic churches were hardly an evolution, merely an outright departure. Roman Catholicism became inherently gnostic - the orthodox church replaced by a gnostic anti-church. The Anglican church is such a bag of chalk and cheese that you can't easily characterize ALL of it, though you can view women priests as being evidence of rampant gnosticism.
My rabbit is a Christian too.
Paine's arguments are old hat - a boring cavil which proves nothing.
Like the church, but with all those millions of asylum seekers heading up your way, isn't the scenery is likely to change?