Jesus' Wife?

[Berkut]

No, not UU. Unity, a religion and a game engine. http://www.unity.org/

While individual Unitarians are welcome to believe in the divinity of Christ, the UUA has no position that Christ was or was not divine (or really that he even existed at all), so cannot by any reasonable definition be considered Christian.

I do not see why to be considered Christian you must abide by strict Trinitarian Orthodoxy. Indeed if that was the case why would there even be a term 'Trinitarian'? It would just be Christianity.

I don't think there is any "must" to much of anything.

You believe whatever it is you believe, and what you call it seems largely unimportant to your own beliefs.

Now, when you want to start using terms that the rest of us use regularly, then it becomes at least useful to use them in the same fashion that those you are trying to communicate use them.

You identify yourself as Unitarian. OK. Presumably you use that word to mean something specific - it is short-hand for some set of beliefs.

Similarly, "Christian" is also short hand for some set of beliefs. You can forgo using the term altogether, and just list out your relevant beliefs. But instead you *chose* to use a particular term to describe your beliefs around religion, and that term is "Christian".

That word means something to most people, it is short hand for a set of beliefs that we generally assume that people who call themselves "Christian" share. That set includes, traditionally, a belief in the special divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was a unique and divine being whose purpose and actions resulted in the actual salvation of humankind (at least those who accept him), and that he was the actual son of god.

Not believing that there is a god pretty much makes the term "Christian" largely useless as a label. Not believing that Christ was specially divine does the same, IMO.

You are certainly free to call yourself whatever you like, but I am free to categorize people in what is, to me, a more useful manner. And that categorization does not put people like yourself in the group of those who I consider to be "Christian".

What is interesting to me though is *why* there is the (seemingly?) emotional need to call yourself a Christian in the first place? Why do you *want* to be able to use a term to reference yourself that is, at best, going to lead people to make assumptions about your beliefs that will prove to be absolutely incorrect?

[Jacob]

What is interesting to me though is *why* there is the (seemingly?) emotional need to call yourself a Christian in the first place? Why do you *want* to be able to use a term to reference yourself that is, at best, going to lead people to make assumptions about your beliefs that will prove to be absolutely incorrect?

Because 90+% of human history and social behaviour is either about clashes between different in-groups or struggles over who exactly gets to decide the membership of various groups?

[Berkut]

What is interesting to me though is *why* there is the (seemingly?) emotional need to call yourself a Christian in the first place? Why do you *want* to be able to use a term to reference yourself that is, at best, going to lead people to make assumptions about your beliefs that will prove to be absolutely incorrect?

Because 90+% of human history and social behaviour is either about clashes between different in-groups or struggles over who exactly gets to decide the membership of various groups?

So you are saying that Valmy wants to call himself a Christian because he has some shared with the masses desire to be in the "in" crowd?

That is kind of a harsh assessment.

We are not really talking about clashing between any groups, just Valmy. He is just one person, and unless he has some other problems, cannot really "clash" with himself. And I rather doubt that he is worried that there will rise some struggle or clash where he will need to seek protection from Christians he has fooled into thinking he is one of...

[alfred russel]

I think it makes sense for Valmy to call himself christian. His religion / church is a distinct part of the christian tradition, if it doesn't fit some original definition. He has as much basis as a non religious jew calling himself a jew.

[Barrister]

What I don't get is why Berkut, who most definitely is not a Christian, thinks he gets to decide who is.

Whi is, and is not, a Christian is a topic that has taken up a lot of ink over the centuries.  Some protestants don't think that catholics qualify as Christians, although that's not universally shared.  The "christian" nature of mormons has been widely debated.  I haven't often discussed religion with my bahai friends, but he once said he considered himself Christian as his faith accepts Christ as a prophet.  And the Unitarians present their own puzzle.

I have my own opinions on whether various groups are Christian or not.  But my general rule in life is people should be called what they want to be called.  If Valmy wants to call himself a Christian he's welcome to the term as far as I'm concerned.

[Berkut]

LOL, that is funny Beebs.

In one breath you indignantly create a destroy the strawman of claiming I get to decide who is a Christian, and then in the next admit that you in fact do *exactly* the same thing!

I have my own opinions on whether various groups are Christian or not.

I guess you are just so special that YOU are allowed your own opinions, but I am not.

Why do YOU get to decide?

Note: I never claimed *I* get to decide, I simply said rather clearly I think that Valmy does not meet the definition that *I* use when *I* categorize people for MY use.

And the answer to the question you did not ask, because it would be a stupid question, is that *I* don't consider him a Christian because I think that when *I* use the term I mean someone who believes in the traditional definition of the term in its broadest conventional sense, which is someone who believes that Christ was divine, came to Earth as the actual and divine son of God for the purpose of saving humanity from our sins. I think that is a rather boringly conventional definition, and while it allows for some interesting debates about Mormons, it doesn't allow for much debate when it comes to people who say Jesus Christ was not even supernatural.

So when *I* asked him if he was Christian, it was because I wanted to better understand his beliefs. He could call himself a Muslim Unitarian Progressive Marxo-Buddhist for all I care, but there is some utility in using words in a fashion that is broadly agreed upon, so as to avoid confusion. This seems especially relevant when the topic of discussion is in fact the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. You know, that guy who founded the largest religion ever 99.9% of whose followers would agree with the statement that he was actually the son of an actual existent god.

[Berkut]

I think it makes sense for Valmy to call himself christian. His religion / church is a distinct part of the christian tradition, if it doesn't fit some original definition. He has as much basis as a non religious jew calling himself a jew.

That is fair, although I don't think that is really the basis that he is using. But if that is the case, then I am happy for him to correct me and say that he is not religiously Christian, but identifies with what is broadly considered to be the "Christian" 'ethnic' or social group?

And "Jew" is not really a fair comparison - Jews, after all, are pretty much the exception that proves the rule in that it is an ethnic group distinction and a religious distinction at the same time. One can be religiously Jewish, and yet not be ethnically Jewish, and it is rather well known that many people who identify themselves as ethnically Jewish are not religiously Jewish - indeed, this is considered an almost uniquely Jewish "thing".

[Barrister]

This seems especially relevant when the topic of discussion is in fact the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. You know, that guy who founded the largest religion ever 99.9% of whose followers would agree with the statement that he was actually the son of an actual existent god.

I don't think the number is anywhere near that high - there are several ordained ministers of various denominations who don't believe in Jesus' divinity, after all.

[Berkut]

This seems especially relevant when the topic of discussion is in fact the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. You know, that guy who founded the largest religion ever 99.9% of whose followers would agree with the statement that he was actually the son of an actual existent god.

I don't think the number is anywhere near that high - there are several ordained ministers of various denominations who don't believe in Jesus' divinity, after all.

Well if there are several out of over a billion, then I suppose that the number cannot really be that high.

[Barrister]

This seems especially relevant when the topic of discussion is in fact the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. You know, that guy who founded the largest religion ever 99.9% of whose followers would agree with the statement that he was actually the son of an actual existent god.

I don't think the number is anywhere near that high - there are several ordained ministers of various denominations who don't believe in Jesus' divinity, after all.

Well if there are several out of over a billion, then I suppose that the number cannot really be that high.

Well to get to the number (it's actually about two billion) counts every single person who has ever checked off a box marked "Christian" in a survey, or was baptized as a youth, without really looking at what those people believe.

I'd dare say that an amount of people greater than 0.1% of two billion Christians don't really accept many or most of the fundamental tenets of the faith, or even give them much thought.  And thats before you start counting outfits like the Unitarians (or trying to classify groups like the Mormons of Witnesses).

[Malthus]

What is interesting to me though is *why* there is the (seemingly?) emotional need to call yourself a Christian in the first place?

Connection to a tradition.

Whether they are, or are not "Christians" in some essential Trinitarian sense, it is clear that the movement derived from a tradition with its roots in Christianity, rather than (say) Hinduism, Judaism, etc. A desire for a connection to that tradition makes a certain amount of sense.

[Berkut]

Thanks for that insightful contribution.

[Malthus]

Thanks for that insightful contribution.

Hey, you asked. 

[HVC]

Thanks for that insightful contribution.

Hey, you asked. 

i thought it was a good answer at least.

[Berkut]

What is interesting to me though is *why* there is the (seemingly?) emotional need to call yourself a Christian in the first place?

Connection to a tradition.

Whether they are, or are not "Christians" in some essential Trinitarian sense, it is clear that the movement derived from a tradition with its roots in Christianity, rather than (say) Hinduism, Judaism, etc. A desire for a connection to that tradition makes a certain amount of sense.

Yeah, I could certainly see that.

However, I don't get that feeling from Valmy. He doesn't seem like someone who hasn't thought much about his faith, and just reflexively answers "Christian" when asked, even if they really don't believe...he seems like he has an actual, defined belief that is rather positive, does NOT include a belief in the supernatural divinity of Christ, yet still wants to call himself Christian.

Again, it is only interesting to me insofar as it was kind of confusing in the discussion in that I though he idenitified as Christian, yet had some beliefs that didn't seem to fit into the typical mold...like that Jesus was just some guy with some good ideas.