Interesting article in the Atlantic about a Coptic manuscript mentioning "Jesus' wife". Thought it might be of interest to some languishers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/
Didn't click since it's unbelievable.
It's a very interesting article. I had read it before Jake posted it here.
It's not really a story of ancient Christianity - it's a story of trying to track down the provenance of the papyrus scrap, which leads to 1980s East Germany.
There exists an large body of ancient Jesus literature aside from the canonical and even non-canonical gospels. Including amusing stories about his childhood exploits.
There is apocrypha stating that Jesus was married as well as apocrypha stating he was gay. Of course, that doesn't make any of it true. :sleep:
I've always assumed Jesus was married because he was a rabbi and apparently very charismatic, and rabbis are supposed to be married.
"University of Eastern Pee-Pee Land"
:lol:
So, I take it that the author believes it was a forgery.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
"University of Eastern Pee-Pee Land"
:lol:
So, I take it that the author believes it was a forgery.
Seems the conclusion, yes.
It's an interesting cast of characters and a nice piece of investigation.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2016, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
"University of Eastern Pee-Pee Land"
:lol:
So, I take it that the author believes it was a forgery.
Seems the conclusion, yes.
It's an interesting cast of characters and a nice piece of investigation.
Yeah, the guy did the leg work. That's becoming so rare these days. I had a bad feeling when he started with internet searches, but was happy to read that he went to meet these people.
It would make me sad to think that Jesus had a mother in law :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2016, 11:55:40 AM
I've always assumed Jesus was married because he was a rabbi and apparently very charismatic, and rabbis are supposed to be married.
Yup.
Rabbis were not really a thing back then though. I mean not as an institution. He was a member, and eventual leader, of a weird millennialist cult so we cannot assume he had some kind of conventional life. Also it seems likely he was the son of an unmarried mother, with several half-brothers and sisters, and came from a class of landless laborers.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 02:23:30 PM
Rabbis were not really a thing back then though. I mean not as an institution. He was a member, and eventual leader, of a weird millennialist cult
Was he? Or did the cult develop around him after his death? I'm not sure if it's entirely clear that he claimed to be the son of God, or the Messiah, or something else, or nothing. I think it's only proven that others made these claims about him.
Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2016, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 02:23:30 PM
Rabbis were not really a thing back then though. I mean not as an institution. He was a member, and eventual leader, of a weird millennialist cult
Was he? Or did the cult develop around him after his death? I'm not sure if it's entirely clear that he claimed to be the son of God, or the Messiah, or something else, or nothing. I think it's only proven that others made these claims about him.
I don't think he claimed to be those things. I think he was a 'be just to the poor and the downtrodden you rich hypocritical bastards' in the Old Testament tradition combined with a claim that the Kingdom of God had come in some metaphysical sense. The reason I think this is because the ONLY common event in the four gospels is the incident at the Temple in Jerusalem, so one must assume that if he existed this must have been the most famous and well known incident.
The cult I am referring to is the one led by John the Baptist, the one whose leadership he assumed after John was killed. Presuming you believe that story. I do because the gospels have to do some gymnastics to explain why Jesus would be the follower of somebody else. Since it is a problem they have to address I assume it was common knowledge.
Oh, I see. Gotcha.
(((Jesus))) was the son of God. I don't think (((He))) kept quiet about that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 02:23:30 PM
Rabbis were not really a thing back then though. I mean not as an institution. He was a member, and eventual leader, of a weird millennialist cult so we cannot assume he had some kind of conventional life. Also it seems likely he was the son of an unmarried mother, with several half-brothers and sisters, and came from a class of landless laborers.
The Pharisees were basically the sect that had 'rabbis'. They may not have yet been called "rabbis", but the core notions were the same: interpretation of the laws by 'teachers' or 'sages', who interpret an 'oral Torah' to illuminate/interpret the 'written Torah'.
They contrasted with the ' Sadducees' who rejected an 'oral Torah', and concentrated on the written text alone. Modern Judaism descends from the Pharisees in a pretty direct line.
There is no reason to suspect that a core belief of Judaism - than people are supposed to get married - was any different then. Christianity inherited its anti-sexual animus from Gnostic notions that were around at the time, among Greeks more than among Jews (the notion that the spirit is good and the body is bad): there was a sect of Jews who
may have believed such things - the Essenes - but there is no evidence Jesus was an Essene: he certainly did not act like one (the Essenes appeared to be a sort of communist religious community living apart from others).
It is more likely Jesus was an offshoot of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the "popular" party (as opposed to the Sadducees, who were a priestly elite). The Pharisees believed in following the teachings of individual 'sages' or 'teachers', which is how Jesus presented himself. Many of Jesus' teachings echo those of the Pharisees. The disparaging references in the Gospels to Pharisees as rules-mongers appears to be in the context of arguing down rivals within the same community.
Hey I am not saying he didn't have a wife. Only that it is possible he had bottom rung social status, the possibility that his parents do not seem to have been married, and his possible association with a weird cult mean that we cannot assume he did what was expected from a respectable Jew at the time. I don't think he was a sage in the sense he was some kind of expert on the law. But could have been. Who knows?
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 02:56:10 PM
Hey I am not saying he didn't have a wife. Only that it is possible he had bottom rung social status, the possibility that his parents do not seem to have been married, and his possible association with a weird cult mean that we cannot assume he did what was expected from a respectable Jew at the time. I don't think he was a sage in the sense he was some kind of expert on the law. But could have been. Who knows?
The Gospels
claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
QuoteOn one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Happy Jesus' wife, happy eternal life.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 02:56:10 PM
Hey I am not saying he didn't have a wife. Only that it is possible he had bottom rung social status, the possibility that his parents do not seem to have been married, and his possible association with a weird cult mean that we cannot assume he did what was expected from a respectable Jew at the time. I don't think he was a sage in the sense he was some kind of expert on the law. But could have been. Who knows?
He seems to have attracted a group of followers, some of them female, who were willing to follow him despite social convention. Why not marry one, if there was no religious reason not to? Other weird cult leaders have had no problem with that ... the difficulty for them is to stop at marrying
one. ;)
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2016, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
"University of Eastern Pee-Pee Land"
:lol:
So, I take it that the author believes it was a forgery.
Seems the conclusion, yes.
It's an interesting cast of characters and a nice piece of investigation.
Yes, and well written. The more he investigated the more real life gave him some good Hollywood worthy twists and turns too. Crazy.
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
QuoteHe seems to have attracted a group of followers, some of them female, who were willing to follow him despite social convention. Why not marry one, if there was no religious reason not to? Other weird cult leaders have had no problem with that ... the difficulty for them is to stop at marrying one. ;)
I was addressing the convention that Rabbis were expected to marry. I was merely saying he was not a typical guy so those kinds of expectations may not have applied. Indeed he might have had mass orgies for all I know.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
QuoteHe seems to have attracted a group of followers, some of them female, who were willing to follow him despite social convention. Why not marry one, if there was no religious reason not to? Other weird cult leaders have had no problem with that ... the difficulty for them is to stop at marrying one. ;)
I was addressing the convention that Rabbis were expected to marry. I was merely saying he was not a typical guy so those kinds of expectations may not have applied. Indeed he might have had mass orgies for all I know.
The convention isn't just for Rabbis, but for all adult Jews. Rabbis were simply held to that convention (as to all others) more stringently, because they are supposed to set an example.
Celibacy in Judaism is, basically, considered really weird for adults. Not a desirable state of affairs at all. Paul, of course, held that it
was - and in doing so, he went against all Jewish precedent.
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 04:09:27 PM
Celibacy in Judaism is, basically, considered really weird for adults. Not a desirable state of affairs at all. Paul, of course, held that it was - and in doing so, he went against all Jewish precedent.
Well yeah God ordered you people to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see less than 10 children Malthus.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 04:09:27 PM
Celibacy in Judaism is, basically, considered really weird for adults. Not a desirable state of affairs at all. Paul, of course, held that it was - and in doing so, he went against all Jewish precedent.
Well yeah God ordered you people to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see less than 10 children Malthus.
Was god specific about the factor of multiplication?
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
You say that like the characteristics of Jesus were just something made up by the writers to serve some particular purpose. What a silly notion!
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 07:52:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
You say that like the characteristics of Jesus were just something made up by the writers to serve some particular purpose. What a silly notion!
Yeah. That was how stories were told back then. Look at how the Roman Emperors were described by their historians. They are usually given characteristics to communicate their opinion on the Emperor rather than something that person might have actually had.
So when you are studying a particular historical (or possibly historical) person you have to keep that in mind.
I don't think it was necessarily dishonest or anything it was just the literary style at the time.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2016, 06:13:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 04:09:27 PM
Celibacy in Judaism is, basically, considered really weird for adults. Not a desirable state of affairs at all. Paul, of course, held that it was - and in doing so, he went against all Jewish precedent.
Well yeah God ordered you people to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see less than 10 children Malthus.
Was god specific about the factor of multiplication?
No, he was vague. So the traditional interpretation is just to multiply as much as possible just to be safe.
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 07:52:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
You say that like the characteristics of Jesus were just something made up by the writers to serve some particular purpose. What a silly notion!
There are faster ways to kill yourself then to create fictional character that offends local authorities so they saw you in half, or behead you.
Of course he's married. His wife helps him run the taco truck.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 16, 2016, 08:08:35 PM
Of course he's married. His wife helps him run the taco truck.
If my name was Jesus I would buy one of those abandoned churches and the sign out front would say 'Jesus dwells within'
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 08:07:06 PM
There are faster ways to kill yourself then to create fictional character that offends local authorities so they saw you in half, or behead you.
Yeah I am pretty sure Jesus was a real dude who existed and who had followers. It seems a bit bizarre to create a person and movement simply because you want to piss off both the Jews and the Romans in the 1st century.
But, you know, Jesus didn't write any books like Caesar did.
I will wait for Siege, our resident Jewish expert, to weigh in.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 04:09:27 PM
Celibacy in Judaism is, basically, considered really weird for adults. Not a desirable state of affairs at all. Paul, of course, held that it was - and in doing so, he went against all Jewish precedent.
Well yeah God ordered you people to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see less than 10 children Malthus.
Hey, I multiply all the time. Ten tines ten is one hundred!
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2016, 07:50:14 AM
Hey, I multiply all the time. Ten tines ten is one hundred!
The mitzvah to plant fruit trees and memorize the multiplication tables has been fulfilled! Well done sir -_-
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 03:16:29 PM
The Gospels claim he was, and go out of their way to show him confounding the "experts in the law" of the day with his learning. See: Luke 10:25, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Sometimes he is an expert on the law. Other times he is the defier of the law. Depends on what the point the Gospels were trying to make.
Ya gotta know the rules to know when to break the rules.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2016, 08:34:20 AM
Ya gotta know the rules to know when to break the rules.
I was trying to say his relation to the law suited the spiritual message the writer was trying to convey. Naturally the Son of God would know his own rules. But sometimes he is explaining and teaching the law. Other times he is not.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2016, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2016, 08:34:20 AM
Ya gotta know the rules to know when to break the rules.
I was trying to say his relation to the law suited the spiritual message the writer was trying to convey. Naturally the Son of God would know his own rules. But sometimes he is explaining and teaching the law. Other times he is not.
I would say that more as sometimes he is doing whatever the writer needs him to do to further the writers point, and other times he is doing something else the writer needs him to do to further some other writers completely different point.
It is like reading Star Wars fan fiction.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2016, 09:32:43 AM
I would say that more as sometimes he is doing whatever the writer needs him to do to further the writers point, and other times he is doing something else the writer needs him to do to further some other writers completely different point.
It is like reading Star Wars fan fiction.
Again that is not the way they thought of it. They are trying to communicate that this guy is a really marvelous spiritual leader who exemplifies all that is good. The same way that bad Roman Emperors are not bad because they are bad administrators or generals, they are morally corrupt.
Or is it worth discussing this issue with you? You pretty much straight up ignored my last post to just keep jeering along :P
"Son of God" had a particular meaning in Hellenistic (and pre-Hellenistic) era Jewish literature. It mean identification with the Davidic dynasty - David and his descendants are often described as "son of God" in an adoptive sense. I.e. "Son of God" is a messianic claim not a claim of divinity. This also dovetails with the two of the more credible historical claims in the Gospel - the crucifixtion and label "King of the Jews"
The problem with the gospel accounts in terms of accurately describing the message is that they transform a messianic claim which likely was made either by Jesus himself or by his advocates, with a series of theological claims that are unlikely to have been made at the time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2016, 10:00:06 AM
"Son of God" had a particular meaning in Hellenistic (and pre-Hellenistic) era Jewish literature. It mean identification with the Davidic dynasty - David and his descendants are often described as "son of God" in an adoptive sense. I.e. "Son of God" is a messianic claim not a claim of divinity. This also dovetails with the two of the more credible historical claims in the Gospel - the crucifixtion and label "King of the Jews"
The problem with the gospel accounts in terms of accurately describing the message is that they transform a messianic claim which likely was made either by Jesus himself or by his advocates, with a series of theological claims that are unlikely to have been made at the time.
True. But I think the theological leap came from the fact he got crucified instead of doing the sorts of things Isaiah said he was supposed to. So it all had to be re-interpreted later. Well also the Greeks got their mitts on the story and understood it differently.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2016, 09:36:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2016, 09:32:43 AM
I would say that more as sometimes he is doing whatever the writer needs him to do to further the writers point, and other times he is doing something else the writer needs him to do to further some other writers completely different point.
It is like reading Star Wars fan fiction.
Again that is not the way they thought of it. They are trying to communicate that this guy is a really marvelous spiritual leader who exemplifies all that is good.
I think they are trying to communicate that this "guy" is whatever they needed him to be at the time they were writing whatever it is they were writing. My point here is that their goal was not so much to convince anyone that Christ was the Son of God and should be worshipped, but that people should listen to whatever it is they are trying to tell them. That might be that he is the Christ, and it might be that you should be nice to prostitutes, and it might be that you really should pay your taxes.
There is nothing here that is clearly driven by what they actually think happened, as opposed to what message they want to send. What happened, or what characteristics Christ had, is completely malleable - he is just a stand in for whatever the writer wants to say.
In other words, for any particular writer, is they wanted to say "One ought to think proposition X" then it just so happened that Jesus said "X is really great!". There isn't any sense that the writers might have thought ~X, and changed their mind because of what they learned about Jesus'.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2016, 10:00:06 AM
The problem with the gospel accounts in terms of accurately describing the message is that they transform a messianic claim which likely was made either by Jesus himself or by his advocates, with a series of theological claims that are unlikely to have been made at the time.
Indeed - which is why I think the argument about whether Jesus actually existed or not pretty much misses the point.
Whether he did or did not exist, it seems very clear that assuming some person did exist who people generally mean when they talk about "Jesus", he likely would be as surprised by his supposed characteristics as any modern reader is reading about them.
Which is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.
Poor Berkut.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGIcYGgy.jpg&hash=2d309cbc7d8dc61f7f34de53a1d544e85724fc92)
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2016, 12:00:53 PM
I think they are trying to communicate that this "guy" is whatever they needed him to be at the time they were writing whatever it is they were writing.
Which was how this kind of thing was traditionally done. You cannot expect people of that era to not act within their own culture.
QuoteMy point here is that their goal was not so much to convince anyone that Christ was the Son of God and should be worshiped, but that people should listen to whatever it is they are trying to tell them. That might be that he is the Christ, and it might be that you should be nice to prostitutes, and it might be that you really should pay your taxes.
I think their goal was to express that Christ was the Son of God and thus the perfect man and then go about defining what that means and demonstrating what that looks like in context of stories and events that the reader would have heard of.
QuoteThere is nothing here that is clearly driven by what they actually think happened, as opposed to what message they want to send. What happened, or what characteristics Christ had, is completely malleable - he is just a stand in for whatever the writer wants to say.
Well it is not that simple. I mean they, like Herodotus, are driven by what they think happened but that is informed by certain values. They just thought about things differently.
QuoteIn other words, for any particular writer, is they wanted to say "One ought to think proposition X" then it just so happened that Jesus said "X is really great!". There isn't any sense that the writers might have thought ~X, and changed their mind because of what they learned about Jesus'.
No they were informed by Greek philosophy and the Greek historical tradition. Not by the Enlightenment. Which is what one should expect right? :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2016, 12:04:54 PM
Indeed - which is why I think the argument about whether Jesus actually existed or not pretty much misses the point.
Even if the entire point is a discussion about his possible historic existence? I would agree it misses the point of his spiritual role. He is a representation of a spiritually perfect person. Loving and selfless.
QuoteWhether he did or did not exist, it seems very clear that assuming some person did exist who people generally mean when they talk about "Jesus", he likely would be as surprised by his supposed characteristics as any modern reader is reading about them.
Probably.
QuoteWhich is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.
I don't think that is reasonable at all. They wrote about him the way they wrote about everybody. Likewise it would be surprising to find that the historical Nero was nothing at all like his portrayal even if much was added as a literary device. They are accentuating qualities they understood him to have to communicate certain things.
I recommend Pope Benedict's Jesus trilogy on this sort of thing. It really is a very brilliant series of books. And it's like reading great criticism or history, even when you disagree and are aware of their biases, there's a real pleasure in seeing expertly executed interpretation.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2016, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2016, 12:04:54 PM
Indeed - which is why I think the argument about whether Jesus actually existed or not pretty much misses the point.
Even if the entire point is a discussion about his possible historic existence? I would agree it misses the point of his spiritual role. He is a representation of a spiritually perfect person. Loving and selfless.
But in that case, whether he actually existed or not isn't even relevant. The idea of him is what is being sold, so who actually cares whether or not he was a real person?
But the reality is that people do in fact care a great deal. The basis of the dominant world religion rests on the idea that he actually existed, not that there is some existent ideal.
Quote
QuoteWhether he did or did not exist, it seems very clear that assuming some person did exist who people generally mean when they talk about "Jesus", he likely would be as surprised by his supposed characteristics as any modern reader is reading about them.
Probably.
QuoteWhich is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.
I don't think that is reasonable at all. They wrote about him the way they wrote about everybody.
I don't think this "they" you are referencing was some homogenous entity that all had identical goals and methods.
Quote
Likewise it would be surprising to find that the historical Nero was nothing at all like his portrayal even if much was added as a literary device.
If it turned out that in fact Nero had nothing at all to do with his depiction, then in fact that would be rather interesting, and if someone made an argument that I should believe something on the basis of the idea that Nero had some set of characteristics, then in fact it would be rather relevant to point out that he actually did not.
And you can't really compare some historical figure to God. It isn't really an analogy that works - nobody is asking anyone to structure our moral, ethical, and societal codes around the divine revelation of Nero. If they do, and it gains traction, then it might be worthwhile pointing out to them as well that they actually don't really know the first thing about the actual Nero and what he thought, and in fact their scripture is actually entirely created by themselves, and has no more intrinsic validity than any other set of ideas put forth by their contemporaries.
Quote
They are accentuating qualities they understood him to have to communicate certain things.
How do you know they are accentuating qualities they understood him to have, or are making up whatever qualities they wish for him to have?
Like, for example, that he is the actual son of god, as opposed to simply a teacher?
As a matter of fact, there decent evidence that the historical knowledge of Nero is incorrect. I believe Josephus mentioned that he was slandered by historians in Rome. Our knowledge of historical character of great antiquity is poor. Often based on one or two sources. It's entirely possible that Nero didn't kill his mother. Perhaps it was just a slander created by his enemies. And of course, the Caesars were worships as gods.
Valmy, I don't recall - are you actually a Christian? Do you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact divine?
He was certainly fabulous.
One thing I'll say for him, Jesus was cool.
Quote from: Caliga on June 18, 2016, 10:56:03 AM
One thing I'll say for him, Jesus was cool.
Yeah, and I can't fucking believe that they changed that line!
Just read the article in the OP. Wow did the investigation go some weird places, was not expecting kind and sensitive personholding gangbang porn to be a significant clue when I started it.
EDIT: Who the hell edited my post!? :lol:
If you used c u c k or a derivitive the board auto changes it.
*edit* also why are you posting in a two month old thread without adding anything?
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 12:52:50 AM
If you used c u c k or a derivitive the board auto changes it.
*edit* also why are you posting in a two month old thread without adding anything?
I just came across the article and wanted to add my 2 cents.
Well at least you posting reminded me of the time CdM admitted his love of big cock rabbits in Mexico and I've been giggling for the last few minutes, so it wasn't all bad.
Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 02:16:50 PM
It would make me sad to think that Jesus had a mother in law :(
A Jewish one at that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2016, 08:11:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 08:07:06 PM
There are faster ways to kill yourself then to create fictional character that offends local authorities so they saw you in half, or behead you.
Yeah I am pretty sure Jesus was a real dude who existed and who had followers. It seems a bit bizarre to create a person and movement simply because you want to piss off both the Jews and the Romans in the 1st century.
But, you know, Jesus didn't write any books like Caesar did.
Yeah. Thats always been my argument. There was no profit in inventing Jesus at the time. Certainly it didn't work out for Paul, his key "inventor". Whether Jesus was the Son of God is debatable, but that he existed in one form or another, to me, makes sense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2016, 10:00:06 AM
Which is why I think the only reasonable answer to the question of whether he existed in the form described by Christianity is clearly "not in any meaningful sense". If there was such a person at all, it is certainly clear that those who eventually wrote the dominant story about who he was and what he was, did so without any particular concern about his actual characteristics, but rather what they wanted him to be at the time they wrote about him.
yeah, I can accept this as a valid argument. Look even the four accepted gospel writers diverge in their accounts. No doubt Jesus in some form was co-opted by the writers to argue their point of view. Jesus was an early version of Wiki.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2016, 09:35:45 AM
Valmy, I don't recall - are you actually a Christian?
Yes...well maybe. I am not sure I would be certified by the True Christian Committee(TM). But I self-identify :P
QuoteDo you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact divine?
Yes. But no more or less than anybody else. -_- I predict ISIS will be disappointed when he fails to return from the grave to save them in their darkest hour. I hope I am not going out on too much of a theological limb there.
Quote from: Josephus on August 22, 2016, 08:07:50 AM
yeah, I can accept this as a valid argument. Look even the four accepted gospel writers diverge in their accounts. No doubt Jesus in some form was co-opted by the writers to argue their point of view.
Ancient writers did this all the time. History was usually used to teach moral lessons less than actually record events. I am not even sure they were conscious that what they were doing was 'co-opting' or distorting the truth, it was just how it was done.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 08:25:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2016, 09:35:45 AM
Valmy, I don't recall - are you actually a Christian?
Yes...well maybe. I am not sure I would be certified by the True Christian Committee(TM). But I self-identify :P
QuoteDo you believe that Jesus Christ was in fact divine?
Yes. But no more or less than anybody else. -_-
I'll take that as a "no".
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
I'll take that as a "no".
Any particular reason you view all Unitarians as not Christians?
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
I'll take that as a "no".
Any particular reason you view all Unitarians as not Christians?
Probably the same reason actual Christians don't consider them Christians.
Not believing that Christ was divine* pretty much kills the basic definition of the term, in the context I am discussing it (do you actually believe that Jesus Christ was a deity - and not in the sense that 'we are all deities!' but actually the Son of God, able to perform miracles, etc., etc.).
*Calling everyone divine is pretty much a cop out.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:26:58 AM
Probably the same reason actual Christians don't consider them Christians.
Well then what are we then? :hmm:
QuoteNot believing that Christ was divine* pretty much kills the basic definition of the term, in the context I am discussing it (do you actually believe that Jesus Christ was a deity - and not in the sense that 'we are all deities!' but actually the Son of God, able to perform miracles, etc., etc.).
*Calling everyone divine is pretty much a cop out.
Well needless to say I couldn't disagree more with this nonsense.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:26:58 AM
Probably the same reason actual Christians don't consider them Christians.
Well then what are we then? :hmm:
Unitarians.
Quote
QuoteNot believing that Christ was divine* pretty much kills the basic definition of the term, in the context I am discussing it (do you actually believe that Jesus Christ was a deity - and not in the sense that 'we are all deities!' but actually the Son of God, able to perform miracles, etc., etc.).
*Calling everyone divine is pretty much a cop out.
Well needless to say I couldn't disagree more with this nonsense.
You don't have to agree with me, as your agreements that *I* don't consider people who think Jesus was just some guy with some good ideas as being people who believe that he was the Son of God isn't really all that meaningful in any fashion. IN fact, it seems kind of like a tautology.
I understand that YOU consider yourself Christian, and I have no problem with that - but when *I* am trying to define for myself reasonable religious categories, people who profess to hold no actual religious beliefs as I understand the term "religion" are very relevant to that categorization...hence my original question to you. I appreciate the clarification, and for me, you fall into "agnostic/atheist", unless I am not understanding your belief system thoroughly, which of course is very possible.
Myself, people who claim no actual religious beliefs beyond the desire to call themselves religious aren't religious.
I can say I am a millionaire because I value my friendships and the love of my family as being worth more than a million dollars, and that statement might make some kind of sense, but if someone was taking a census of people who are actually worth more than a million dollars, they still don't qualify even if their statement might be true is some figurative sense.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 09:34:36 AM
Well needless to say I couldn't disagree more with this nonsense.
BTW, I cannot possibly be the first person to state that they don't consider Unitarians Christian.
I am sure you've heard this many times long before me.
It isn't exactly crazy talk to note that someone who doesn't necessarily even believe that there is a "God" in the sense that 99.9% of other Christians think there is a god (much less that he had a divine son, the trinity, rising from the dead, etc., etc) doesn't meet the traditional definition of "Christian".
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 09:26:58 AM
Probably the same reason actual Christians don't consider them Christians.
Well then what are we then? :hmm:
QuoteNot believing that Christ was divine* pretty much kills the basic definition of the term, in the context I am discussing it (do you actually believe that Jesus Christ was a deity - and not in the sense that 'we are all deities!' but actually the Son of God, able to perform miracles, etc., etc.).
*Calling everyone divine is pretty much a cop out.
Well needless to say I couldn't disagree more with this nonsense.
Now you know how all those ISIS fighters feel when people tell them what they do has nothing to do with Islam. :P
Martinus be careful about pointing out areas of common ground, or this thread could trigger an ISIS - Unitarian alliance.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 10:47:22 AM
Martinus be careful about pointing out areas of common ground, or this thread could trigger an ISIS - Unitarian alliance.
They behead you, and then hold an informative non-judgmental meeting with free coffee? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 11:00:20 AM
They behead you, and then hold an informative non-judgmental meeting with free coffee? :hmm:
Yeah I was trying to figure out how our alliance would work. :lol:
You are a spiritual being having a physical experience OF BEING OUR SEX SLAVE.
Valmy, are you UU?
As someone who sympathizes with the UUA, and has attended UU services in the past in both KY and MA, the term I hear more than Christian is 'post-Christian', meaning the UUA had its roots in Christianity but has moved beyond it. 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.
So Valmy can be a Christian and belong to a UU church, but he can't say that the UU is Christian. I'm not sure what exactly he was trying to say so he can clarify that if he wants.
No, not UU. Unity, a religion and a game engine. http://www.unity.org/
QuoteWhile 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.
Also I view one of the strengths of Christianity as a religion is its variety of interpretation. So I don't have much time for such a narrow interpretation.
QuoteSo Valmy can be a Christian and belong to a UU church, but he can't say that the UU is Christian. I'm not sure what exactly he was trying to say so he can clarify that if he wants.
I have no position on the Christianity of UU
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 12:04:06 PM
No, not UU. Unity, a religion and a game engine. http://www.unity.org/
QuoteWhile 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?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2016, 12:41:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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...
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.
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.
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!
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 01:10:17 PM
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".
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2016, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
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. :lol:
Well if there are several out of over a billion, then I suppose that the number cannot really be that high.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2016, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:27:18 PM
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. :lol:
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).
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Thanks for that insightful contribution.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
Thanks for that insightful contribution.
Hey, you asked. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
Thanks for that insightful contribution.
Hey, you asked. :lol:
i thought it was a good answer at least. :hug:
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
Thanks for that insightful contribution.
Hey, you asked. :lol:
Sorry, that was meant to be in response to Beebs post above where he was kind enough to go into a careful analysis of whether more than 0.1% of Christians are really Christian or something. He is always good at really driving to what is important in a discussion when his personal attacks and strawmen get destroyed.
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching. Sure to be Catholic you had to believe in his divinity because of the whole nicene creed thing.
But then again I'm an atheist now so what do I know.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching.
Which part of his teaching?
Can you elect to not believe in the part where he said he was the Son of God, and performed miracles and rose from the dead and still be Christian?
If so...then does that make me Christian?
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:14:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching.
Which part of his teaching?
Can you elect to not believe in the part where he said he was the Son of God, and performed miracles and rose from the dead and still be Christian?
If so...then does that make me Christian?
most literalist Protestants ignore the love your neighbour and turn your other cheek teachings and prefer the old testement eye for an eye and gays are evil teachings. Are they not chritians because they ignore part of Jesus' teachings? All Christian denominations ignore the parts of the bible (even the new testement) that doesn't go with the things they want to believe in. Does that mean, in your view, that no one is A christian?
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching. Sure to be Catholic you had to believe in his divinity because of the whole nicene creed thing.
But then again I'm an atheist now so what do I know.
I think Berkut takes a very narrow view toward what religious identity means to people. A lot of people aren't deeply contemplating the nuances of their faith's theology. They were just born into that faith and it is their religious team, sort of like of they were born into a family of Packers or Redskins fans.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2016, 12:04:06 PM
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.
Well, since you're not UU and I know nothing about Unity then most of my post does not apply to you. Sorry to make assumptions about your faith dude.
That said, while Unitarians historically were noted for their rejection of the Trinity, and I think you can easily argue that Unitarian Christians are still Christian, the modern UUA takes it further and does not mandate that you believe in the divinity of Jesus... or really any aspect of Christianity at all, for that matter. For me, that makes the UUA decidedly non-Christian. I don't personally think that someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus can in any way, shape, or form be considered a Christian. If so, then why can't we call the Jews Christians too?
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:18:46 PM
most literalist Protestants ignore the love your neighbour and turn your other cheek teachings and prefer the old testement eye for an eye and gays are evil teachings. Are they not chritians because they ignore part of Jesus' teachings? All Christian denominations ignore the parts of the bible (even the new testement) that doesn't go with the things they want to believe in. Does that mean, in your view, that no one is A christian?
There are hardly any Christians in a courtroom. Every litigant I have ever met ignores this part:
QuoteMatthew 5:40
40 if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well;
I'm here to tell you that hardly ever happens. :D
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:14:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching.
Which part of his teaching?
Can you elect to not believe in the part where he said he was the Son of God, and performed miracles and rose from the dead and still be Christian?
If so...then does that make me Christian?
most literalist Protestants ignore the love your neighbour and turn your other cheek teachings and prefer the old testement eye for an eye and gays are evil teachings. Are they not chritians because they ignore part of Jesus' teachings? All Christian denominations ignore the parts of the bible (even the new testement) that doesn't go with the things they want to believe in. Does that mean, in your view, that no one is A christian?
I don't think literalist Protestantsignore those things, they simply fail at executing on them. My experience is that they would all say that You absolutely should love your neighbor, even if they don't always do so.
They would not say, however, that they don't think it was the message of Christianity to love your neighbor.
But where are going with this? Is the fact that Christians have a wide sivergence on what they think Christianity is reason to just presume that the word means literally nothing? That there is ZERO informative value to the term "I am Christian"?
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
The argument here seems to be the case, that you are a Christian if you say you are a Christian, no matter what you actually believe - in other words, the word has zero meaning outside yourself.
Obviously, as I've stated, within yourself it doesn't really matter what label you give your own beliefs.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:14:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching.
Which part of his teaching?
Can you elect to not believe in the part where he said he was the Son of God, and performed miracles and rose from the dead and still be Christian?
If so...then does that make me Christian?
That would be the portion of his teaching where he establishes the Roman Catholic Church :P (at the RCC, not you Berkie).
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
I was raised Catholic and I never thought of needed to believe in the divinity of Christ was need to be considered Christian, just the belief in his teaching. Sure to be Catholic you had to believe in his divinity because of the whole nicene creed thing.
But then again I'm an atheist now so what do I know.
I think Berkut takes a very narrow view toward what religious identity means to people. A lot of people aren't deeply contemplating the nuances of their faith's theology. They were just born into that faith and it is their religious team, sort of like of they were born into a family of Packers or Redskins fans.
I think that is basically true, and I come from a family that certainly fits that mold in a few cases.
But still, if you asked them, even if they haven't been to church in a decade, they would still say they believe in the core "Christian" beliefs, at least insofar as the remember them from sunday school or bible camp or wherever. Jesus was the divine son of god sent to earth as the savior of mankind.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
ok if that is the case then I believe that their belief structure is different enough from other Christians to not classify Unitarians as Christians. if they don't follow the bible nor believe in jesus as a person, from what Cal said in this other post, then I wouldn't classify sometone as a Christian.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
ok if that is the case then I believe that their belief structure is different enough from other Christians to not classify Unitarians as Christians. if they don't follow the bible nor believe in jesus as a person, from what Cal said in this other post, then I wouldn't classify sometone as a Christian.
<awaits flames and wrath from Beebs>
Who are you to say what makes someone Christian!!!
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
I don't know where a scenario would come up where someone would say that they don't believe in anything Jesus preached yet still claimed they were Christian. But sure if it makes you happy to move to goal posts around, I would not be comfortable calling them a Christian in this parallel universe scenario of yours.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god. What if someone belongs to a group (lets call them "unitarians") that follows the teachings of jesus as laid out in the bible, historically believed in the divinity of jesus, but at a certain point as scholarship advanced decided to give up an opinion one way or the other on the theological stance? If they still follow the teachings of jesus....
Scenes I'd love to see on cross-examination:
Q: You are being sued by my client for $10K, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you or do you not consider yourself a Christian?
A: Well, yes, I'm a Christian.
Q: Have you ever read the NT?
A: Certainly.
Q: I'm going to read you a section from Matthew [reads Matthew 5:40: "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well"] Is this or is this not part of Christian teaching?
A: Yes ...
Q: At $100 per tunic, $10K would buy 100 tunics, correct?
A: I guess so, but ...
Q: You have refused to give my client 100 cloaks, or the value of 100 cloaks, in addition to the $10K he was asking for, correct?
A: Wait a minute ...
Q: Just answer the question.
A: Well, yes, but I don't see ...
Q: So, when you said you were a Christian that wasn't accurate, correct?
I didn't really think there were people who would say they don't believe Jesus was divine at all and yet still claim to be Christian, but hey, who cares anyway?
I don't actually *care* if Valmy calms himself Christian, I just wanted to understand what he believes.
He does NOT believe that Jesus was divine (in the sense that most people use the term), does not believe he performed miracles, does NOT believe he was the actual son of god, and does not believe that he was sent to earth to provide us salvation.
In my opinion, much like you, that makes him not a Christian as I understand the term and find it useful to categorize belief systems.
But our comfort is largely irrelevant to Valmy. He wants to call himself Christian, that is his business.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 01:03:49 PM
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?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:49:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
ok if that is the case then I believe that their belief structure is different enough from other Christians to not classify Unitarians as Christians. if they don't follow the bible nor believe in jesus as a person, from what Cal said in this other post, then I wouldn't classify sometone as a Christian.
<awaits flames and wrath from Beebs>
Who are you to say what makes someone Christian!!!
I, to my shame, forgot how thoroughly unpleasant you can be to discuss things with. Not the worse on languish, but pretty high up there. I don't know why you felt the need to do that. Calling out Beeb in an unnecessary manner so that you could continue arguing with him and continue to a be a dick to him. You aren't in this discussion to make points, but as some means of getting your aggression out.
Cal made his points throughout the thread without being unnecessarily aggressive, so it is quite possible to stay civil in this discussion.
And with that i'm done with this thread.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2016, 02:55:33 PM
Scenes I'd love to see on cross-examination:
Q: You are being sued by my client for $10K, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you or do you not consider yourself a Christian?
A: Well, yes, I'm a Christian.
Q: Have you ever read the NT?
A: Certainly.
Q: I'm going to read you a section from Matthew [reads Matthew 5:40: "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well"] Is this or is this not part of Christian teaching?
A: Yes ...
Q: At $100 per tunic, $10K would buy 100 tunics, correct?
A: I guess so, but ...
Q: You have refused to give my client 100 cloaks, or the value of 100 cloaks, in addition to the $10K he was asking for, correct?
A: Wait a minute ...
Q: Just answer the question.
A: Well, yes, but I don't see ...
Q: So, when you said you were a Christian that wasn't accurate, correct?
A: I am a christian. When you reduce your claim to a tunic, I will hand over a tunic, as well as a cloak. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god. What if someone belongs to a group (lets call them "unitarians") that follows the teachings of jesus as laid out in the bible, historically believed in the divinity of jesus, but at a certain point as scholarship advanced decided to give up an opinion one way or the other on the theological stance? If they still follow the teachings of jesus....
An interesting question, I suppose.
My problem here is that if we water down the definition of "Christian" to be "One who follows 'the teachings' of Christ", then it of course begs the question of...what teachings?
And that itself can be watered down quite a bit - you can (and people have) summed up the teaching of Christ as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love the neighbors" or "Stop being such assholes to each other".
That then means that there are a lot of Christians out there (myself included) who are in point of fact Christian who most certainly would NOT identify themselves as such, and would even object to such an identification. Indeed, you could "follow the teachings of Christ" while being a member of an actually opposed religious group, like Hindu's or Muslims or followers of Zeus. Literally, if anyone who follows the most basic of the teachings of Christ, but does not even believe he was a god, or even believe there IS a god are Christians, then I am a Christian. I think that a definition of Christianity that includes an avowed atheist is a pretty silly definition.
And so we end up with another basically useless word, because people seem so afraid to let words actually *mean* something.
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:49:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
ok if that is the case then I believe that their belief structure is different enough from other Christians to not classify Unitarians as Christians. if they don't follow the bible nor believe in jesus as a person, from what Cal said in this other post, then I wouldn't classify sometone as a Christian.
<awaits flames and wrath from Beebs>
Who are you to say what makes someone Christian!!!
I, to my shame, forgot how thoroughly unpleasant you can be to discuss things with. Not the worse on languish, but pretty high up there. I don't know why you felt the need to do that. Calling out Beeb in an unnecessary manner so that you could continue arguing with him and continue to a be a dick to him. You aren't in this discussion to make points, but as some means of getting your aggression out.
Cal made his points throughout the thread without being unnecessarily aggressive, so it is quite possible to stay civil in this discussion.
And with that i'm done with this thread.
Oh please, that is some pretty light poking at Beebs in response to his doing the same with me. If you are going to get offended at that, I guess you should be done with a lot of threads.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 03:00:45 PM
A: I am a christian. When you reduce your claim to a tunic, I will hand over a tunic, as well as a cloak. :P
:D
Well, now that you are talking
settlement ...
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:49:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
Vlamy, do Unitarians use a normal bible, or do they go the Mormon route of using a heavenly modified bible? Once you go that route then I think the common belief structure can be changed enough that I wouldn't consider a Unitarian a Christian.
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
ok if that is the case then I believe that their belief structure is different enough from other Christians to not classify Unitarians as Christians. if they don't follow the bible nor believe in jesus as a person, from what Cal said in this other post, then I wouldn't classify sometone as a Christian.
<awaits flames and wrath from Beebs>
Who are you to say what makes someone Christian!!!
I, to my shame, forgot how thoroughly unpleasant you can be to discuss things with. Not the worse on languish, but pretty high up there. I don't know why you felt the need to do that. Calling out Beeb in an unnecessary manner so that you could continue arguing with him and continue to a be a dick to him. You aren't in this discussion to make points, but as some means of getting your aggression out.
Cal made his points throughout the thread without being unnecessarily aggressive, so it is quite possible to stay civil in this discussion.
And with that i'm done with this thread.
Oh please, that is some pretty light poking at Beebs in response to his doing the same with me. If you are going to get offended at that, I guess you should be done with a lot of threads.
Canadians. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:03:15 PM
An interesting question, I suppose.
My problem here is that if we water down the definition of "Christian" to be "One who follows 'the teachings' of Christ", then it of course begs the question of...what teachings?
And that itself can be watered down quite a bit - you can (and people have) summed up the teaching of Christ as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love the neighbors" or "Stop being such assholes to each other".
The teachings in the bible, would I think be a good start.
Yes they can be watered down to a very brief summary form. But they certainly contain more than that. Marxism can be watered down into a slogan or two, but I don't think a true marxist needs to believe in the divinity of Marx! :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god.
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
Further, the New Testament itself has copious references to the same. I get that you can go for the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the rest of the NT, but I have my own opinions about that as well. But that has nothing to do really with how any particular person chooses what to believe or not believe.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 03:08:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:03:15 PM
An interesting question, I suppose.
My problem here is that if we water down the definition of "Christian" to be "One who follows 'the teachings' of Christ", then it of course begs the question of...what teachings?
And that itself can be watered down quite a bit - you can (and people have) summed up the teaching of Christ as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love the neighbors" or "Stop being such assholes to each other".
The teachings in the bible, would I think be a good start.
OK - so you think it is reasonable to call someone a Christian as long as they agree with just the teachings, even if they do not think the person doing the teaching was actually divine?
I don't think that is a terrible idea, but as I mentioned, it waters the definition down enough that it is basically informationally useless, since there are very few people who would disagree with the fundamental tenets of the "teachings of Christ".
On the other hand, some of those tenets are explicitly divinely religious in nature, and rejecting the idea of the existence of god would, IMO, pretty much reject the "teaching of Christ" bit, unless you water it down to a level that is basic enough that again you are just agreeing that it is a good idea to treat each other nicely.
Valmy is white, if he says he is of some religion then he is. Brown people don't have that privilege, for them white people have to decide if they in fact belong to the religion they claim to follow.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:34:21 PM
you are just agreeing that it is a good idea to treat each other nicely.
Fuck that noise.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god.
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
Further, the New Testament itself has copious references to the same. I get that you can go for the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the rest of the NT, but I have my own opinions about that as well. But that has nothing to do really with how any particular person chooses what to believe or not believe.
[/quote]
John 3:16 (I assume that is what you meant) is not entirely explicit.
Also, and as someone that went through catholic education for 12 years, and was taught religion by priests and nuns, I was taught in new testament history by a priest that a likely reason the gospel of john was included in the bible was that the other three gospels (the synoptic gospels that are very similar, as opposed to the gospel of john) is that you can read the synoptic gospels without any sense that jesus is the son of god or divine. They also don't go into so much about theology. So much christian theology comes from John 1, which is mostly not in the voice of Jesus.
So I don't think it is so radical to say there was a historical guy named jesus that wandered around the near east 2000 years ago, and taught lots of cool things that I want to follow, and his followers after his death added in some "god" stuff (as people in the ancient world did) and we ended up with christianity.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god. What if someone belongs to a group (lets call them "unitarians") that follows the teachings of jesus as laid out in the bible, historically believed in the divinity of jesus, but at a certain point as scholarship advanced decided to give up an opinion one way or the other on the theological stance? If they still follow the teachings of jesus....
To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 03:58:41 PM
Also, and as someone that went through catholic education for 12 years, and was taught religion by priests and nuns, I was taught in new testament history by a priest that a likely reason the gospel of john was included in the bible was that the other three gospels (the synoptic gospels that are very similar, as opposed to the gospel of john) is that you can read the synoptic gospels without any sense that jesus is the son of god or divine. They also don't go into so much about theology. So much christian theology comes from John 1, which is mostly not in the voice of Jesus.
Right - the synoptics being generally recognized as preceding John in time, and all three drawing on a common "sayings source" (the hypothesized Q source) put together not that long after Jesus' life. So if someone was looking to find whatever is closest to the words Jesus actually spoke, one would look in the synoptics and not John.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2016, 04:21:58 PM
To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 22, 2016, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?
:hmm: we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.
That is the point.
So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?
The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god.
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
Further, the New Testament itself has copious references to the same. I get that you can go for the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the rest of the NT, but I have my own opinions about that as well. But that has nothing to do really with how any particular person chooses what to believe or not believe.
Quote from: John 4:16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
:unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2016, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2016, 04:21:58 PM
To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.
:lmfao:
If one of them came along today and said he thought Jesus was just a guy with some good ideas and there was no god, then yeah, I think they would not qualify as "Christian" under my definition.
I am sure I am the unique and special flower that equates a belief in god and the divinity of Christ with Christianity.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 05:18:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2016, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2016, 04:21:58 PM
To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.
:lmfao:
If one of them came along today and said he thought Jesus was just a guy with some good ideas and there was no god, then yeah, I think they would not qualify as "Christian" under my definition.
I am sure I am the unique and special flower that equates a belief in god and the divinity of Christ with Christianity.
What if they said Jesus was just a guy with good ideas but there was a God?
Or Jesus was appointed by God but not God himself?
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
That said, while Unitarians historically were noted for their rejection of the Trinity, and I think you can easily argue that Unitarian Christians are still Christian, the modern UUA takes it further and does not mandate that you believe in the divinity of Jesus... or really any aspect of Christianity at all, for that matter. For me, that makes the UUA decidedly non-Christian. I don't personally think that someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus can in any way, shape, or form be considered a Christian. If so, then why can't we call the Jews Christians too?
I tend to consider anyone who professes to believe the Apostles' Creed to be a professing Christian:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen."
I would agree that historical Unitarians would still be Christians under my definition. Unitarian Universalists, as a group, would not, though some individuals who are UU might. I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.
Quote from: alfred russell
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither). Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2016, 05:36:04 PM
e individuals who are UU might. I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.
Quote from: alfred russell
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither). Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?
I think you meant to quote Berkut, not me-I didn't say that. I think Berkut meant to cite John 3:16 rather than 4:16.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2016, 05:47:06 PM
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2016, 05:36:04 PM
e individuals who are UU might. I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.
Quote from: alfred russell
John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.
I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither). Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?
I think you meant to quote Berkut, not me-I didn't say that. I think Berkut meant to cite John 3:16 rather than 4:16.
Ah, the quote function screwed up your reply #122.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
Oh please, that is some pretty light poking at Beebs in response to his doing the same with me. If you are going to get offended at that, I guess you should be done with a lot of threads.
Someone was suggesting the same thing to me yesterday...
Give it a rest, cross thread stalker. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure if Berkut realizes it, but there are a lot of different beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, some of which reject his divinity.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Give it a rest, cross thread stalker. :rolleyes:
:yawn:
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Give it a rest, cross thread stalker. :rolleyes:
:yawn:
Exactly
No, you are just dull. Berkut is a zealot, his atheism is that of a fanatic. You are just a shadow that follow behind him.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Give it a rest, cross thread stalker. :rolleyes:
:yawn:
Exactly
No, you are just dull. Berkut is a zealot, his atheism is that of a fanatic. You are just a shadow that follow behind him.
Never took him as a zealot on atheism. Perhaps a pigment of your imagination.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 10:34:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:25:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2016, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Give it a rest, cross thread stalker. :rolleyes:
:yawn:
Exactly
No, you are just dull. Berkut is a zealot, his atheism is that of a fanatic. You are just a shadow that follow behind him.
Never took him as a zealot on atheism. Perhaps a pigment of your imagination.
There are a few posters here that I would consider zealots on the subject. Berkut's not one of them.
Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2016, 02:31:37 PM
Unitarians do not use a Bible at all, except perhaps as a reference. When you attend a UU church, in the pews you will find (I forget what they call it) a book with hymns and prayers from all sorts of different religious traditions. To the best of my recollection, the majority of them are Christian in origin but there are also Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim prayers and hymns (translated to English) included.
We actually use the bible quite often.
QuoteBut where are going with this? Is the fact that Christians have a wide sivergence on what they think Christianity is reason to just presume that the word means literally nothing? That there is ZERO informative value to the term "I am Christian"?
A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2016, 04:25:06 PM
Right - the synoptics being generally recognized as preceding John in time, and all three drawing on a common "sayings source" (the hypothesized Q source) put together not that long after Jesus' life. So if someone was looking to find whatever is closest to the words Jesus actually spoke, one would look in the synoptics and not John.
:thumbsup:
Needless to say John requires some dancing around for people like me :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:30:09 AM
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
Heck even John wrote that if you believe in what Jesus is about you can do even better things than he did. Kind of a weird thing to say if he needed you to believe he was a super human god being and you were a mere mortal.
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:32:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:30:09 AM
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
Heck even John wrote that if you believe in what Jesus is about you can do even better things than he did. Kind of a weird thing to say if he needed you to believe he was a super human god being and you were a mere mortal.
is the book of John puts Jesus' status as son of God up for interpretation and personal preferences, or states it as fact?
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:30:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
I was looking at wikipedia's page for nontrinitarianism. Of course it is wiki but of all the various beliefs/communities it outlines, it on quick read looks like only once you hit the modern beliefs/groups do you get groups denying Christ having some sort of divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?
Christ's divinity has been a pretty core tenet to most adherents though, no?
I think Jesus being the son of God is absolutely central to being a Christian. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it is the main thing differentiating Christianity from both Islam and Judaism.
A person who believes in the god of the Bible, but considers Jesus to be just one of the prophets (even if the most important prophet) is simply a (very progressive) Jew.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?
But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:39:28 AM
Christ's divinity has been a pretty core tenet to most adherents though, no?
I suppose. But only because a certain perspective won out back in the day. I have already given my interpretation on this but Berkut informed me it was an unacceptable cop out :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?
But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?
This strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:46:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:39:28 AM
Christ's divinity has been a pretty core tenet to most adherents though, no?
I suppose. But only because a certain perspective won out back in the day. I have already given my interpretation on this but Berkut informed me it was an unacceptable cop out :lol:
I must have missed that. The only part I recall you saying was something about trinitarian vs. nontrinitarian but it seems like even most nontrinitarians still thought of Jesus as in some way divine (even if his divinity wasn't from birth but something that came later).
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:46:49 AMThis strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.
That may be true but both you and Valmy make the same mistake of seeing all these parts as equivalent.
Firstly, the actual composition of the Bible in terms of which books are in and which are out has been pretty much set since the 4th century, so it is not like parts were added or removed willy-nilly every few years or so.
Secondly, while Christians indeed ignore or "reinterpret" some parts of the books, there is still a rather strict hierarchy in what can go out and what cannot. Generally, the Old Testament is considered most malleable, as it is seen as applying to a different covenant. But on the other hand, the New Testament, especially the gospels, are seen as sacrosanct - I can't think of a single part of the gospels that any Christian sect or church considers to be inapplicable or obsolete.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:46:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?
But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?
This strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.
Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true :P
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:43:50 AM
But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?
I consider it all very important as it is all statements about people's subjective spiritual experience. It is a spiritual book Tamas not a science book. So its 'relation to reality' is a little...I mean we are not reading to learn how to build bridges or figure out the air speed of a laden European swallow. It seems to miss the point somehow.
I mean we are talking about a fundamentally irrational part of human experience. But an extremely important part.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:52:36 AM
Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true :P
Sure? But it has a powerful and important pull on us. We should strive to make it a force for good.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:52:36 AM
Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true :P
That's just silly (and the "dismissive atheist" shtick is really so 1990s). The thing here is not whether something makes sense or not. We are simply discussing what constitutes a Christian religion.
It is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible in an allegorical way, believe in a divine principle (or some other form of godhead) and consider Jesus to be one (or the first and foremost) of human prophets and mystics. Many mystics, deists, freemasons and students of esoterics have done so. But you are not a Christian when you do so.
We can debate this until the end of time and then, maybe, have a resolution, depending on what actually happens then.
A Christian is a disciple of Christ. I think we can all agree on this. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. The problem, of course, is that over 2,000 years what the teachings of Christ actually are, is up for interpretation. Thus anybody who believes they are following Christ can call himself a Christian.
As a Catholic, of course, I think all you proddies are going to hell.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.
BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe. Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy. Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2016, 08:45:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.
BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe. Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy. Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...
But at the same time, shouldn't there be some logical boundaries for what words mean and ones that should be "enforced" in a discussion?
I mean, what if I said that I consider myself Christian, even though I don't believe in the biblical God, I think the Bible is a load of rubbish, I think Jesus never existed, but if he did he would have been a cool dude. I also believe in Zeus and Thor.
Incidentally, given that "Christ" is a title, in order to follow the teachings of "Christ", you have to believe him to have been the "Christ", i.e. saviour and redeemer. If you think he was just a human prophet, then you do not believe Jesus was a "Christ", thus cannot say you are following teachings of "Christ" and thus are not a "Christian".
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2016, 08:45:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.
BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe. Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy. Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...
It isn't really orthodoxy though. There are so many divergent beliefs and sects within thought that Christ was divine.
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Actually, it's exactly like gender. It has been pretty clear for 1800 years too. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity
Well if there was some sort of neo-Arian movement, I'd think that would still be broadly described as Christian.
Over my cold dead body they would :ultra:
Languish: last forum for the Christological Controversies in the modern world. :D
http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk4.htm
At least we aren't exiling or burning those with the "wrong" answers ... yet.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2016, 07:33:46 AM
My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?
I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?
Cause we do that with most pre-modern historical personalities. Do you believe that Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus or Pythagoras had thigh made of gold? Virgil was probably not a sorcerer, Plato probably was not born of a virgin and anointed by bees, and Thutmoses probably didn't talk to the Great Sphynx of Giza (or at least it didn't respond).
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:15:57 AM
Over my cold dead body they would :ultra:
They could probably arrange that - in this hypothetical.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:14:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity
Well if there was some sort of neo-Arian movement, I'd think that would still be broadly described as Christian.
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:14:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity
Well if there was some sort of neo-Arian movement, I'd think that would still be broadly described as Christian.
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
I don't think I'd call them neo-Arian, no.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
Isn't that also a Protestant stance?
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
Isn't that also a Protestant stance?
Not the 'Church, Bride of Christ' stuff, no. :lol:
The 'accepted by early Church Councils', yes. Bit that leaves a lot of what we would probably consider gen-u-ine "Christians" outside the fold - for example, Monophysites (such as Syrian Christians)
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
Not just Catholic, the Orthodox and most Protestants would agree. Almost everyone agrees on the Church Fathers and the early councils.
As Malthus says the only real exception I can think of is the Oriental Churches. But even there the argument is the nature of Christ's divinity which is different.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
Not the 'Church, Bride of Christ' stuff, no. :lol:
Psh :P
Pretty standard Pauline gloss. And I mean the church in its most broad and encompassing definition. Not, you know, the Church.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.
No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.
Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
I don't think I'd call them neo-Arian, no.
Fair, but they do AFAIK reject the trinity which was one of Sheilbh's definitions.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:14:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity
Well if there was some sort of neo-Arian movement, I'd think that would still be broadly described as Christian.
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
I think generally none of them are considered Christian.
Same with gnostics - many gnostic sects recognised teachings of Jesus in some form - none of them were "Christian".
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Well I don't speak for everybody but I personally do not believe in the literal interpretation of that, no.
And by the way I do not reject Christ's divinity at all. I just don't think it was a unique feature. But I seem to need a very specific definition and interpretation to be properly categorized :lol:
It is weird that something like divinity, which has no observable existence, has such a narrow definition.
Valmy, I'd still like to here your take on the Apostles' Creed, and whether or not you would subscribe to it.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to "test" you to see if you're a Christian, I'm just interested in your take on the subject.
Ok sorry but if you don't believe in Resurrection, you are not a Christian. It was Jesus's UA. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 09:09:31 AM
Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.
So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.
The early church councils don't establish 1800 years of history, it is more like ~1500-1691, and the current bible wasn't established until some point between those dates, and arguably after. The doctrine of the trinity was still being established through the early church councils which start the dates I gave.
It is commonplace to refer to previous (now extinct groups) with differing points of view prior or concurrent with the councils as christians (such as arians). As has been pointed out, the nestorians that have survived are still considered christians.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
I don't think I'd call them neo-Arian, no.
Fair, but they do AFAIK reject the trinity which was one of Sheilbh's definitions.
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.
No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.
Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?
Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.
Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.
Dolph killed Apostle Creed in Jesus IV.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:41:44 AM
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
Isn't that also a Protestant stance?
Most protestants, yes, but it seems not all. Including Unitarians, of course. I mean, if you make Trinitarianism the defining test for Christianity, then of course people who do not believe in the trinity are not Christian. That then excludes Nestorians, Arians et. al. On the other hand, if you include Nestorians and Arians, then I'd think you'd also have to include JW, Unitarians, Mormons etc - or find some grounds other than belief in the triune godhead as the defining characteristic.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.
Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.
Yeah, that makes sense to me. If you don't think Christ was (is) divine in some shape or form, then at most you're "culturally Christian" as it were. That said, I think there is some room in the definition of "divine".
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.
No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.
Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?
Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.
Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.
The attack on Nestorianism was exactly that
they did not believe Christ was divine: that the person actually born of Mary was merely a human, though Christ had a divine (but fully separate) counterpart to hos nature. The implication was that the divinity was something that came to him or was conferred on him from God. Hence, Mary wasn't a "mother of God" in Nestorianism.
QuoteNestorianism was denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Nestorius was excommunicated because the council accused him of teaching that Christ was only a human being.
http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/nestorianism-heresy-early-church-5358.html
So, according to the "Early Church Berkuts" ( :P ), Nestorianism was subject to exactly the same criticism as Valmy was in this thread: not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:03:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.
Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.
No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.
Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?
Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.
Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.
The attack on Nestorianism was exactly that they did not believe Christ was divine: that the person actually born of Mary was merely a human, though Christ had a divine (but fully separate) counterpart to hos nature. The implication was that the divinity was something that came to him or was conferred on him from God. Hence, Mary wasn't a "mother of God" in Nestorianism.
QuoteNestorianism was denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Nestorius was excommunicated because the council accused him of teaching that Christ was only a human being.
http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/nestorianism-heresy-early-church-5358.html
So, according to the "Early Church Berkuts" ( :P ), Nestorianism was subject to exactly the same criticism as Valmy was in this thread: not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.
That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:48:21 AM
Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.
Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.
Yeah, that makes sense to me. If you don't think Christ was (is) divine in some shape or form, then at most you're "culturally Christian" as it were. That said, I think there is some room in the definition of "divine".
Certainly, I think there is ample room to decide what that divinity means. I don't think though, for the purposes of classification within the constraints of a discussion, that you should push that to he was divine in the way that we are all somewhat divine. I think for discussing the group term 'Christian' one should really have belief in some sort of special divinity of Christ. Much in the same vein of the whole narrative of he died to absolve us of our sins.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:36:58 AM
Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
I don't think I'd call them neo-Arian, no.
Fair, but they do AFAIK reject the trinity which was one of Sheilbh's definitions.
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
I agree. I would also add Resurrection as a prerequisite (although that may be part of the divinity).
To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.
Or spelling (homoousios vs. homoiousios). :P
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:09:53 AM
Certainly, I think there is ample room to decide what that divinity means. I don't think though, for the purposes of classification within the constraints of a discussion, that you should push that to he was divine in the way that we are all somewhat divine. I think for discussing the group term 'Christian' one should really have belief in some sort of special divinity of Christ. Much in the same vein of the whole narrative of he died to absolve us of our sins.
I think we're close enough that I can say we're in agreement :hug:
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:06:40 AM
I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.
That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.
To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:
1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and
2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).
Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in
both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach. ;) No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.
As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.
Or spelling (homoousios vs. homoiousios). :P
They just sound like a bunch of homos.
[Runs, hides :P]
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.
For sure.
But - as I was getting at a bit earlier - these sort of semantic arguments underpin a lot of in-group vs out-group definitions that often have real social, political, economical, etc impacts.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:03:28 AM
The attack on Nestorianism was exactly that they did not believe Christ was divine: that the person actually born of Mary was merely a human, though Christ had a divine (but fully separate) counterpart to hos nature. The implication was that the divinity was something that came to him or was conferred on him from God. Hence, Mary wasn't a "mother of God" in Nestorianism.
I think I read once (after discussing this on a road trip with Ide and looking up the details later), that the modern catholic church backed off this attack and has said the whole dispute was an unfortunate misunderstanding and about semantics and (then) contemporary politics.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:06:40 AM
I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.
That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.
To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:
1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and
2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).
Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach. ;) No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.
As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree.
But is that bold bit really that they aren't Christian or more that they aren't acting Christian or acting like bad Christians?
I would agree that I think both things are fairly important though the degree to which one adheres to both are somewhat flexible. I'm not sure though that if a person just wholly opts out of one of those two that I'd consider them Christian for the purposes of talking about what Christians believe as a group.
As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:39:50 AM
I think Jesus being the son of God is absolutely central to being a Christian. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it is the main thing differentiating Christianity from both Islam and Judaism.
"Son of god" is a term of art in the OT referring to favored members of the Davidic line. It is a messianic claim not a divine one. Of course trinitarian Christians choose to interpret it otherwise, however, the synoptics are more consistent with OT usage.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:27:36 AM
As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.
For sure, but the second part is pretty significant. If you say "you know, you're not actually a Christian like you say you are" that rather puts a lie to the "I don't care how any individual choose to label themselves" part - even more so when you're in a society where being Christian or not is still fairly significant.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:27:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:06:40 AM
I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.
That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.
To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:
1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and
2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).
Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach. ;) No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.
As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree.
But is that bold bit really that they aren't Christian or more that they aren't acting Christian or acting like bad Christians?
I would agree that I think both things are fairly important though the degree to which one adheres to both are somewhat flexible. I'm not sure though that if a person just wholly opts out of one of those two that I'd consider them Christian for the purposes of talking about what Christians believe as a group.
As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.
There are Protestant groups who hardly ever mention the NT, preferring the OT, and so have come into criticism for that. Historically, the Puritans spring to mind (one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers"). According to their critics, they fell into the category of those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, but did not follow the actual teachings of Jesus (of course, hardly anyone does that. ;) But Puritans hardly even paid it lip service. ).
Quite. The Kirk springs to mind. A lot of their theology was based on the idea of a new covenant in Christ and to this day their symbol is the burning bush and the cross.
Similarly every time they have a row the opposing sides sign covenants etc.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:35:54 AM
(one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers").
Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 11:27:36 AM
As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.
For sure, but the second part is pretty significant. If you say "you know, you're not actually a Christian like you say you are" that rather puts a lie to the "I don't care how any individual choose to label themselves" part - even more so when you're in a society where being Christian or not is still fairly significant.
Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one. I wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.
Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian? :P
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one.
Well you are wrong.
QuoteI wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.
Huh. What sorts of policy decisions would be applicable if you were so inclined? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 12:04:42 PM
Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian? :P
It makes you a fruitcake Marti.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 12:04:42 PM
Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian? :P
It makes you a fruitcake Marti.
That's pretty rich coming from a religious person. But sadly underlines the chief criticism levied against your kind by atheists - that the only difference between you and someone like Dawkins is that he believes in one god less than you do.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 12:07:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:02:19 PM
Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one.
Well you are wrong.
QuoteI wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.
Huh. What sorts of policy decisions would be applicable if you were so inclined? :hmm:
That's what I'm saying - I'm not. I'm just having an internet discussion. :)
And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong. :bowler:
Well then, you surely do go around telling people whether they're Christian or not in spite of claims to the contrary.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
That's what I'm saying - I'm not. I'm just having an internet discussion. :)
I am just curious what the policy implications would be if you were :P
QuoteAnd no, sir, it is you, who is wrong. :bowler:
I will pray for you brother garbon.
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong. :bowler:
Well then, you surely do go around telling people whether they're Christian or not in spite of claims to the contrary.
I don't know replying back to V's retort qualifies as 'going around telling people whether they're Christian'. I think one probably needs to tell at least larger than n=1 at more than one venue. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 12:24:19 PM
I am just curious what the policy implications would be if you were :P
Maybe some sort of rules a la Euro food designations on who is allowed to use the term? I've no idea as I don't think there are really any policy implications - only noted as Jacob was on about 'Christian' societies where there would be implications/repercussions.
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 12:24:19 PM
I will pray for you brother garbon.
I guess that can't hurt and can only help in the off chance that there is a god who gives a damn. :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:35:54 AM
(one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers").
Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.
He was hoping for financial advantage from the Jews of Amsterdam; but many of his Christian followers were hoping Jews would come to England, see how great Puritanism was, how similar it was to Judaism, and convert! :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2016, 09:41:44 AM
Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.
The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.
Isn't that also a Protestant stance?
Most protestants, yes, but it seems not all. Including Unitarians, of course. I mean, if you make Trinitarianism the defining test for Christianity, then of course people who do not believe in the trinity are not Christian. That then excludes Nestorians, Arians et. al. On the other hand, if you include Nestorians and Arians, then I'd think you'd also have to include JW, Unitarians, Mormons etc - or find some grounds other than belief in the triune godhead as the defining characteristic.
I believe that there are protestants who reject the trinity. Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostals.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
I think the trinity is key. It was the subject that most divided early Christians because if you have a divine Jesus how do you also have a divine God the Father? Once you accept the divinity of Jesus you are inevitably going to end up trying to establish the nature of a singular God in (at least) two places. It's why it wracked the early Christian world and why the great cry of Islam was the unity of God which was very receptively heard.
QuoteThe early church councils don't establish 1800 years of history, it is more like ~1500-1691, and the current bible wasn't established until some point between those dates, and arguably after. The doctrine of the trinity was still being established through the early church councils which start the dates I gave.
No but that's separate. The early church councils I agree argue on key issues - but the importance of the church was already clear. St. Cyprian of the third century is the origin of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My view, the view of the Catholic Church, of Orthodoxy, of 90% of Protestantism is that the definition of the church, in the broadest sense, is set by those councils though they may subsequently disagree in what that means. As has been pointed out a lot of those trinitarian and Christological issues were semantic but key at the time and influenced by the politics of the time. JPII broadly reconciled with the Nestorians for example and there is now a common Christological position between, at least, the biggest part of Western Christianity and the Oriental Churches.
But the very fact that the early councils are settling these contentious issues is because of the importance of the church.
Christianity was and has always been a communal faith - 'for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'. The only other religion I know of with that sort of experience is Buddhism where the sangha, the Buddhist or monastic community, has always been a key element and you have a similar early history of, in their case, contentious competing monastic codes within the sangha being settled by councils. But the sangha is still a key element, however it can now be understood, to Buddhism as the church is to Christianity.
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2016, 11:35:54 AM
(one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers").
Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.
He was hoping for financial advantage from the Jews of Amsterdam; but many of his Christian followers were hoping Jews would come to England, see how great Puritanism was, how similar it was to Judaism, and convert! :lol:
This is a little unfair to Cromwell. That was seen as an advantage - though inevitably the merchants and traders were against competition. But I think it is easy to forget how heterodox and liberal Cromwell was religiously (to Protestants - and arguably Jews :lol:). He fraternised and protected a number of groups that were seen by most Puritans and certainly by Anglicans as heretics. He was very fond of a number of Quakers, Adventists and Millenarians which I think is possibly closer to his own religious views than any form of strict Anglican or Presbyterian state Church. His main concern with religious freedom seems to be that it should be allowed to the maximum level without threatening state security/stability (hence anti-Catholic elites, but by many accounts more comfortable for everyday English Catholics). So I think a bigger issue for him was that he thought, in common with many of the other more extreme Protestants of his day, that the Jews needed to return to all countries - and especially England - so that they would then be converted by providence for the Second Coming :lol:
But I do also think that the Puritans, especially after regicide, see themselves as increasingly descendants of Israel. The idea of God stepping in to overthrow kings and empires mattered a lot and several of the many schemes of government were based directly on Old Testament precedent. See Cromwell's proposal for Parliament (the Barebone's Parliament) to have 70 members after the Sanhedrin. There's always that dichotomy in Cromwell's rule of a Puritan radical (which the Sanhedrin proposal is probably at the peak of :lol:) and a constable of a parish trying to heal and set the nation. I think the return of the Jews is very much one of those areas of policy that is more from his radical faith than anything else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
No but that's separate. The early church councils I agree argue on key issues - but the importance of the church was already clear. St. Cyprian of the third century is the origin of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My view, the view of the Catholic Church, of Orthodoxy, of 90% of Protestantism is that the definition of the church, in the broadest sense, is set by those councils though they may subsequently disagree in what that means. As has been pointed out a lot of those trinitarian and Christological issues were semantic but key at the time and influenced by the politics of the time. JPII broadly reconciled with the Nestorians for example and there is now a common Christological position between, at least, the biggest part of Western Christianity and the Oriental Churches.
But the very fact that the early councils are settling these contentious issues is because of the importance of the church.
Christianity was and has always been a communal faith - 'for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'. The only other religion I know of with that sort of experience is Buddhism where the sangha, the Buddhist or monastic community, has always been a key element and you have a similar early history of, in their case, contentious competing monastic codes within the sangha being settled by councils. But the sangha is still a key element, however it can now be understood, to Buddhism as the church is to Christianity.
But this I think misses the dynamics of the church councils and the subsequent history. The church councils started when the roman empire began adopting christianity as the state religion. As you mention, there was a diversity of views at the time (which was already centuries into christian history). A non trivial motivation for the councils was to provide a coherent set of beliefs for the new state religion. If this process starts with Constantine in 325, then I think it is safe to say that a primary mover in christian history the next 1300 years (through at least the 30 years war) is the efforts to enforce the orthodoxy established through the church councils. This goes for both the orthodox churches and the catholic churches. It also applies to first protestant churches, that while splitting off from some teachings, accepted the early church councils (by and large). Protestant communities also often enforced an orthodoxy of their own.
There was a diversity of belief before Constantine, and increasingly after Constantine that diversity was coerced out of existence with support from the state. That state support continued until relatively recent times. Now that it has retreated, the diversity is returning (see Unitarians, for instance). The argument that there has historically been consensus after the early church councils, in that context, seems a bit limited.
I disagree, I think that Christology became the issue of church councils reflects the fact that it was now a state church and these issues of more abstract theology could be settled. The existence and regulation of an early church through councils pre-dates it though. Cyprian for example is leading councils of the North African church over what the position should be for apostates following Roman persecution. Though obviously they did also confront Gnostic heresies which again were testing what the boundaries of the Christian church were. The issues change from how to define and keep this community together against state persecution to establishing more of its core beliefs and, as I say, more abstract issues once it is secure. But the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.
I think this cacophony of views is largely a consequence of liberalism, consumerism and secularism, trends which also weakened state authority (one reinforcing the other). But I agree that there is a return to this diversity of views about Christ but I just think that returns us to the early, pre-Constantine Christianity issues of defining what Christianity is, what the church is and who is inside or outside of it. I certainly think that's a core element of the dilemma many modern churches - especially the Catholic Church - are facing. Should they stay in the world even if they are increasingly a lonely voice, or should they take the Benedict option and, like the monks, basically abandon the world and turn, as a community, to themselves?
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:30:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
I was looking at wikipedia's page for nontrinitarianism. Of course it is wiki but of all the various beliefs/communities it outlines, it on quick read looks like only once you hit the modern beliefs/groups do you get groups denying Christ having some sort of divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs
What about Arianism?
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:50:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:46:49 AMThis strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.
Secondly, while Christians indeed ignore or "reinterpret" some parts of the books, there is still a rather strict hierarchy in what can go out and what cannot. Generally, the Old Testament is considered most malleable, as it is seen as applying to a different covenant. But on the other hand, the New Testament, especially the gospels, are seen as sacrosanct - I can't think of a single part of the gospels that any Christian sect or church considers to be inapplicable or obsolete.
If a Church added the Gospel of Thomas or some of the other apocrypha to their New Testament, or even replaced some of the canonical books with them, I would still consider them to be a Christian church. Certainly much more so than the Mormon church.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
I disagree, I think that Christology became the issue of church councils reflects the fact that it was now a state church and these issues of more abstract theology could be settled. The existence and regulation of an early church through councils pre-dates it though. Cyprian for example is leading councils of the North African church over what the position should be for apostates following Roman persecution.
Cyprian was active about 200 years after Jesus' death. There is little evidence of interest in Christology in the first century or so after the crucifixion. There is no clear evidence of trinitarian theology in this period much less a dominant position.
These issues really don't arise until Chrisitianity is large and organized enough to be a significant social force in particular regions, giving rise to demands for more formal governance. By then Paul and the apostles were long gone as was anyone who knew them in their lifetimes, so there was broad freedom to enforce Christological positions without regard to what early Christians actually thought.p
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2016, 06:48:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 07:38:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 07:30:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.
I was looking at wikipedia's page for nontrinitarianism. Of course it is wiki but of all the various beliefs/communities it outlines, it on quick read looks like only once you hit the modern beliefs/groups do you get groups denying Christ having some sort of divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs
What about Arianism?
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/4WHkXdDx8wjS0/200_s.gif)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2016, 06:48:08 PM
What about Arianism?
What about it?
QuoteBut the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.
I do not really see Constantine as an important doctrinal figure but rather a political one. I mean, after all, he was involved in calling the council that denounced Arianism but then he ended up being baptized by an Arian. Rather odd if you think he co-opted the council to enforce a certain view. Rather he just thought it was political important that the church not fight amongst itself. Councils was just how the church went about mediating disputes, and had done so since the beginning at least according to the New Testament.
Yet sometimes I will hear about how Constantine changed Christianity and made it evil or something. He barely had anything to do with it. I blame Dan Brown.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2016, 08:45:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2016, 12:15:25 PM
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.
Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.
BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe. Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy. Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...
But at the same time, shouldn't there be some logical boundaries for what words mean and ones that should be "enforced" in a discussion?
That is certainly the view Irenaeus held, which is why I made the reference ;)
The problem is, of course, who should define what should be "enforced". The people wishing to create the enforceable definition in this thread have adopted the Catholic orthodox view. The problem with that is, despite Sheilbh's protestations to the contrary, that view was never actually a universal view of all Christians at any point in history including our modern era. It may have been the dominant view at times but that really just goes to the point Jacob has been trying to make throughout this thread.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 08:36:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2016, 06:48:08 PM
What about Arianism?
What about it?
QuoteBut the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.
I do not really see Constantine as an important doctrinal figure but rather a political one. I mean, after all, he was involved in calling the council that denounced Arianism but then he ended up being baptized by an Arian. Rather odd if you think he co-opted the council to enforce a certain view. Rather he just thought it was political important that the church not fight amongst itself.
Yet sometimes I will hear about how Constantine changed Christianity and made it evil or something. He barely had anything to do with it. I blame Dan Brown.
You are oversimplifying in Brown type fashion :P
While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end. He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified. A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:45:43 AM
While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end. He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified. A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt.
How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:45:43 AM
While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end. He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified. A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt.
How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.
This is another one of those times I wonder if we are speaking the same language. :P
The fact the conflicts were divisive is the very reason he wanted to end those conflicts. What point are you trying to make? And I have no idea what you mean by "Orthodoxy had long since won out" It took many more years after Constantine's intervention and several more emperors and much more blood shed before one could plausibly claim victory for what became orthodoxy.
Consider that there were about 7 such councils over about 400 years which reversed and then reinstated or restated the original creed. Church history was anything but uniform and decisive from the time of Constantine. So at least on that last point we agree. Constantine didnt dictate what orthodoxy was. That took at least another 400 years to fully establish.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 08:49:02 AM
How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.
I don't think Orthodoxy had won out by the time of Constantine. For example, even a couple centuries after Constantine, Italy was under the rule of an Arian, for instance.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 09:09:00 AM
The fact the conflicts were divisive is the very reason he wanted to end those conflicts.
Right but his intervention didn't make them less or more so.
QuoteAnd I have no idea what you mean by "Orthodoxy had long since won out" It took many more years after Constantine's intervention and several more emperors and much more blood shed before one could plausibly claim victory for what became orthodoxy.
Ok this is what I mean: Arianism and the others were extremely close to the Orthodox position. It is not like the nature of Christianity was being fought out here. They were fighting about details. The really serious divergent stuff had been long since rejected. Very important details to them for sure.
QuoteConsider that there were about 7 such councils over about 400 years which reversed and then reinstated or restated the original creed. Church history was anything but uniform and decisive from the time of Constantine. So at least on that last point we agree. Constantine didnt dictate what orthodoxy was. That took at least another 400 years to fully establish.
I am well aware. But I think the main point is that Constantine did not dictate nor did he seem to have a strong opinion on the specifics of Orthodoxy.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 09:15:31 AM
Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.
Yeah, I think that's a good analogy.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 09:15:31 AM
Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.
Why is it akin to claiming something that is not a religion is a religion? What a bizarre comparison.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 09:17:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2016, 09:15:31 AM
Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.
Yeah, I think that's a good analogy.
How? Is it also akin to claiming a chess club is Christian? How about a tap dancing class?
Unitarianism is a branch of Christianity. So claiming it is not Christian seems to me similar to claiming Shi'ites are not Muslims. Many Sunni do claim this BTW.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 09:18:46 AM
Unitarianism is a branch of Christianity..
It isn't, though. The guy who is a minister at the UU church I used to go to in Louisville once said it's a 'post-Christian' church.
I do not claim to be an expert on Unitarianism but from what I hear from you guys, it seems to me that Unitarianism is less of a "religion" and more of a "spiritual organisation". The line is very fine (and law usually does not distinguish between the two) but to me Unitarianism is more similar to Confucianism or Free Masonry than it is to Islam or Christianity - it's more of a life philosophy than a set of metaphysical dogmas.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
So they are the Openly Just Social Churchgoers religion, then? :P
Quote from: Tamas on August 24, 2016, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
So they are the Openly Just Social Churchgoers religion, then? :P
They are just people who like to meet, sing hymns and eat cake on Sundays, but can't be bothered with the whole "god" thing. :P
Quote from: Tamas on August 24, 2016, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
So they are the Openly Just Social Churchgoers religion, then? :P
He is talking about Unitarian Universalists. Which is rather defined by that 'Universalist' thing. But I do think they have a spiritual life. That is kind of the whole point. I mean I think even a significant amount of people who spend time in a religion that believes crazy shit are not really there because they love crazy shit. So why not remove the crazy shit?
I mean if the Jews have space for reconstructionist Judaism why shouldn't Christianity have space for something similar?
Quote from: Tamas on August 24, 2016, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
So they are the Openly Just Social Churchgoers religion, then? :P
Not a bad thing to be. :)
Unitarians allegedly believe in the teachings of Jesus, as the exemplar of morality (which they interpret in a "liberal in the modern meaning of the term" sense). Seems to me that "Christianity" is a reasonable label for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
There are a number of other languishites well ahead of Valmy in the line-up for immolation.
As the on-call Spaniard in Languish, I call dibs on the burning of heretics.
Quote from: celedhring on August 24, 2016, 11:08:47 AM
As the on-call Spaniard in Languish, I call dibs on the burning of heretics.
No-one expected that.
Quote from: Jacob on August 24, 2016, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
There are a number of other languishites well ahead of Valmy in the line-up for immolation.
Awwwww what a sweet thing to say :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 10:08:41 AM
He is talking about Unitarian Universalists. Which is rather defined by that 'Universalist' thing.
That's not what the 'Universalist' part of the UUA name means. The 'Unitarian Universalist' name is one with historical origins that represents the merger of two different New England churches with very liberal beliefs which IIRC happened in the 1920s/30s.
The Unitarians rejected the Trinity and if I recall correctly, by extension the divinity of Jesus.
The Universalists rejected the concept of Hell. Everyone was 'saved' and reconciled with God in the afterlife, regardless of any sins committed in life, willingness to repent, etc.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 12:29:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 10:08:41 AM
He is talking about Unitarian Universalists. Which is rather defined by that 'Universalist' thing.
That's not what the 'Universalist' part of the UUA name means. The 'Unitarian Universalist' name is one with historical origins that represents the merger of two different New England churches with very liberal beliefs which IIRC happened in the 1920s/30s.
The Unitarians rejected the Trinity and if I recall correctly, by extension the divinity of Jesus.
The Universalists rejected the concept of Hell. Everyone was 'saved' and reconciled with God in the afterlife, regardless of any sins committed in life, willingness to repent, etc.
Ah. Thank you. You can understand how there are certain qualities of the UU church that led me astray on that. Not that I don't think UU is cool and all.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 12:29:08 PM
The Universalists rejected the concept of Hell. Everyone was 'saved' and reconciled with God in the afterlife, regardless of any sins committed in life, willingness to repent, etc.
As I understand it, Catholics don't close off the potential for a universal salvation. I know doesn't seem to fit with a lot of the other teachings.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:40:15 PM
As I understand it, Catholics don't close off the potential for a universal salvation. I know doesn't seem to fit with a lot of the other teachings.
With the Universalists, it was more cut and dry. There is no Hell, there is no Satan, and for some, there is no sin.
Before the UUA decided to let everyone believe whatever they wanted, they'd also rejected the concept of sin altogether.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
Ah. Thank you. You can understand how there are certain qualities of the UU church that led me astray on that. Not that I don't think UU is cool and all.
Yep, it's a common misconception. :hug:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:40:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 12:29:08 PM
The Universalists rejected the concept of Hell. Everyone was 'saved' and reconciled with God in the afterlife, regardless of any sins committed in life, willingness to repent, etc.
As I understand it, Catholics don't close off the potential for a universal salvation. I know doesn't seem to fit with a lot of the other teachings.
I thought that Catholics thought you were eventually cool so long as you got baptized at some point. You just have to spend a long time getting your soul cleaned.
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
I think it is never going to happen.
Hitler was baptized and Simon Wiesenthal wasn't. No Catholic heaven for him. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
I think it is never going to happen.
Hitler was baptized and Simon Wiesenthal wasn't. No Catholic heaven for him. ;)
:lol:
Yeah it is best not to think about it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
I think it is never going to happen.
Hitler was baptized and Simon Wiesenthal wasn't. No Catholic heaven for him. ;)
I think universal salvation means everyone--not just the baptized.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
I think it is never going to happen.
Hitler was baptized and Simon Wiesenthal wasn't. No Catholic heaven for him. ;)
Suicide is a mortal sin. You get turned into a tree and harpies shit on you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2016, 01:11:29 PM
Suicide is a mortal sin. You get turned into a tree and harpies shit on you.
Oh right. Bummer Hitler.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
They'll laugh and say it was all a big misunderstanding. It'll be like the end of a Three's Company episode.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
Universal salvation is going to be awkward when simon wiesenthal runs into Hitler in heaven.
I think it is never going to happen.
Hitler was baptized and Simon Wiesenthal wasn't. No Catholic heaven for him. ;)
But Wiesenthal was probably baptized into the Mormon faith after his death so he will always have his own planet in Mormon heaven.
Quote from: PRC on August 24, 2016, 01:28:40 PM
But Wiesenthal was probably baptized into the Mormon faith after his death so he will always have his own planet in Mormon heaven.
True :hmm:
See? It all worked out.
Quote from: Tamas on August 24, 2016, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2016, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 10:01:07 AM
By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?
Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".
Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense. They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing. It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.
So they are the Openly Just Social Churchgoers religion, then? :P
Social Justice
Warriors Crusaders?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
Finally some common sense.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
I would guess so as well :P
What your question about the Apostle's Creed?
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
No need to get an answer. If he is a true christian that believes the apostles creed, the flames will not injure him when we set him on fire. :P
Sound logic :w00t:
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 04:12:56 PM
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
I would guess so as well :P
What your question about the Apostle's Creed?
Just whether you would ascribe to the beliefs it professes.
Well, I had also asked in another thread several years ago (and never got an answer) if anyone knew if Mormons ascribed to it, but that wasn't directed to you personally.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 09:16:09 AM
I am well aware. But I think the main point is that Constantine did not dictate nor did he seem to have a strong opinion on the specifics of Orthodoxy.
Yeah, that is why I said he had no dog in the fight, he just wanted the fight to end. ;)
Sometimes I think Languish has taught you to just reflexively disagree :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
No need to get an answer. If he is a true christian that believes the apostles creed, the flames will not injure him when we set him on fire. :P
Wait a minute, Shadrack, Mishack and Abednigo (sp?) didnt need any apostles creed to withstand the flames. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Guys, I don't know what we will decide regarding Valmy's christian status, but can we all agree now, that whatever we conclude, we will burn Valmy at the stake?
It would help if he'd answer my question about the Apostles' Creed. I'd guess that he'd say "no", but I'm not 100% sure.
No need to get an answer. If he is a true christian that believes the apostles creed, the flames will not injure him when we set him on fire. :P
Wait a minute, Shadrack, Mishack and Abednigo (sp?) didnt need any apostles creed to withstand the flames. :hmm:
That was old testament, under the old covenant, before jesus sealed a new covenant. That was the point immunity from fire executions transferred from jews to christians. No christian has ever been harmed through an execution by burning. No true christian, I should say.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:05:30 PM
Yeah, that is why I said he had no dog in the fight, he just wanted the fight to end. ;)
Sure. But what does that have to do with how I was over simplifying in a Brown-type fashion? That seems to support what I said originally.
QuoteSometimes I think Languish has taught you to just reflexively disagree :P
Huh? You came after me. I was talking to Tim and you just chimed in to tell me I was mistaken in some way. I explained the reasons for my position. I simply did not understand how you were disagreeing with me or what the issue was with my position.
And if you could stop putting in a patronizing insult in every post that would be great.
He can't.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 06:33:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:05:30 PM
Yeah, that is why I said he had no dog in the fight, he just wanted the fight to end. ;)
Sure. But what does that have to do with how I was over simplifying in a Brown-type fashion? That seems to support what I said originally.
QuoteSometimes I think Languish has taught you to just reflexively disagree :P
Huh? You came after me. I was talking to Tim and you just chimed in to tell me I was mistaken in some way. I explained the reasons for my position. I simply did not understand how you were disagreeing with me or what the issue was with my position.
And if you could stop putting in a patronizing insult in every post that would be great.
You said:
Quoteyet sometimes I will hear about how Constantine changed Christianity and made it evil or something. He barely had anything to do with it. I blame Dan Brown.
Constantine did change Christianity. He set the precedent for a calling a council to resolve theological disputes. He set the precedent for the emperor to interfere with theological matters. He did end up supporting one side over the other. True he may not have thought deeply about theological issues. But he did want one to win over the other. It is a bit naive the think that involving the power of the state "barely had anything to do" with what happened. I would go so far as to say it is a simplification worthy of a Dan Brown novel. :P
As for being patronizing, I calls them as I see them. It doesnt help you case that our recent drama queen was quick to chime in :)
None of this discussion would have happened if Valmy simply admitted he is a heathen heretic and beyond the pale of the human society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:41:50 AM
The problem is, of course, who should define what should be "enforced". The people wishing to create the enforceable definition in this thread have adopted the Catholic orthodox view. The problem with that is, despite Sheilbh's protestations to the contrary, that view was never actually a universal view of all Christians at any point in history including our modern era. It may have been the dominant view at times but that really just goes to the point Jacob has been trying to make throughout this thread.
Psh :P
All I'm saying is I'm not a fan of this lovey-dovey idea of Christianity. Christ is important - and clearly divine - but the radical genius of Christianity is Pau. He's basically God's Lenin. There's none of this 'believe what you want' nonsense that saw a million other religious movements effervesce. Paul goes and builds the party. He sets up sects all around the place. He has cadres and is building a radical, Middle Eastern splinter group that survives against violent state opposition that he is in constant communication with. It's spiritual centralism.
But that persecution and risk of betrayal is why whether you're inside or outside mattered; whether it's the codes and symbols used to identify the real Christians or Cyprian's mediating position in the rows over apostates - extra ecclesiam nulla salus - and incidentally my understanding is that that argument was settled by a council and reflected existing precedent. Yeah Constantine matters and wants to unify the church around one coherent theology, but I actually think those schisms reflect the security of Christianity at that point. The church can worry about the will, nature, etc of Christ and his role in the Trinity because they don't have to worry about martyrdom. It isn't that they agreed, or disagreed, before its that that survival of this church, community, party mattered more before Constantine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:48:47 PM
All I'm saying is I'm not a fan of this lovey-dovey idea of Christianity.
I am well aware. :P
QuoteNone of this discussion would have happened if Valmy simply admitted he is a heathen heretic and beyond the pale of the human society.
Huh...that makes me sound so dangerous. Maybe I will.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:48:47 PM
All I'm saying is I'm not a fan of this lovey-dovey idea of Christianity. Christ is important - and clearly divine - but the radical genius of Christianity is Pau. He's basically God's Lenin.
I love this analogy.
Jesus is Marx,
Paul is Lenin,
There are many contenders for the role of Stalin :P,
Benedict is Brezhnev,
Francis is Gorbachev? :)
Wait so Catholicism is about to collapse?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
I love this analogy.
Jesus is Marx,
Paul is Lenin,
There are many contenders for the role of Stalin :P,
Benedict is Brezhnev,
Francis is Gorbachev? :)
Sadly not entirely mine, but everyone loves Jesus just like everyone digs Marx nowadays. You needed Paul's betrayal of Christ's message to build Christianity as an actual religion for good or bad.
Constantine as Stalin.
Luther as Mao.
Calvin as Hoxha.
Pius X as Brezhnev.
John XXIII as Gorbachev.
Everybody loves Marx? Huh.
Same as everybody loves Freud or Jesus. Love in a sort of 'sure the implementation is batshit and maybe it doesn't work but they had some really interesting and important ideas that we've all internalised.'
Marx, Freud, and Jesus? :x
Quote from: The Brain on August 25, 2016, 03:11:50 PM
Marx, Freud, and Jesus? :x
Everyone loves a Jew with big ideas, it seems. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2016, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 25, 2016, 03:11:50 PM
Marx, Freud, and Jesus? :x
Everyone loves a Jew with big ideas, it seems. :lol:
The Jews didn't come up with every big idea in the world! What about Einstei....oh right....Darwin though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
I love this analogy.
Jesus is Marx,
Paul is Lenin,
There are many contenders for the role of Stalin :P,
Benedict is Brezhnev,
Francis is Gorbachev? :)
Sadly not entirely mine, but everyone loves Jesus just like everyone digs Marx nowadays. You needed Paul's betrayal of Christ's message to build Christianity as an actual religion for good or bad.
Constantine as Stalin.
Luther as Mao.
Calvin as Hoxha.
Pius X as Brezhnev.
John XXIII as Gorbachev.
Your list is much better, but I'm not sold Constantine is a good fit for Stalin.
Well he was a pretty brutal and paranoid man.
Paul may be Lenin but he doesn't stake out a clear Trinitarian position either which is why people are still arguing centuries later.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2016, 03:48:19 PM
Well he was a pretty brutal and paranoid man.
From a Roman perspective, but from a christian perspective (which is the perspective of the list) I don't think it holds up so well.
Could well be right :lol:
Who were you thinking of?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 04:20:55 PM
Could well be right :lol:
Who were you thinking of?
If I had a brilliant suggestion I would have offered it. :P
Torquemada?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 01:48:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2016, 08:41:50 AM
The problem is, of course, who should define what should be "enforced". The people wishing to create the enforceable definition in this thread have adopted the Catholic orthodox view. The problem with that is, despite Sheilbh's protestations to the contrary, that view was never actually a universal view of all Christians at any point in history including our modern era. It may have been the dominant view at times but that really just goes to the point Jacob has been trying to make throughout this thread.
Psh :P
All I'm saying is I'm not a fan of this lovey-dovey idea of Christianity. Christ is important - and clearly divine - but the radical genius of Christianity is Pau. He's basically God's Lenin. There's none of this 'believe what you want' nonsense that saw a million other religious movements effervesce. Paul goes and builds the party. He sets up sects all around the place. He has cadres and is building a radical, Middle Eastern splinter group that survives against violent state opposition that he is in constant communication with. It's spiritual centralism.
But that persecution and risk of betrayal is why whether you're inside or outside mattered; whether it's the codes and symbols used to identify the real Christians or Cyprian's mediating position in the rows over apostates - extra ecclesiam nulla salus - and incidentally my understanding is that that argument was settled by a council and reflected existing precedent. Yeah Constantine matters and wants to unify the church around one coherent theology, but I actually think those schisms reflect the security of Christianity at that point. The church can worry about the will, nature, etc of Christ and his role in the Trinity because they don't have to worry about martyrdom. It isn't that they agreed, or disagreed, before its that that survival of this church, community, party mattered more before Constantine.
I don't disagree with that. But I don't think it helps your argument that belief in the Trinity is necessary to be considered Christian. It was only after Christianity became secure as the state religion that the true nature of Christ became a defining issue. When Christians were at risk there was no discussion about the Trinity. There is nothing about it in the Synoptic Gospels, Paul's writings or any of the other early writings that didnt make the cut of getting into the Bible. In those early days the Christians were a lot more about community and serving the poor. So in that regard Valmy's religion is probably closer to being truly Christian than someone who can recite (and understand) a creed created by committee to satisfy the political elite of the day. :P
Has the argument morphed to whether someone who thinks Christ is divine, son of god, came to earth to save us, etc., etc. is NOT Christian if they don't believe in the Trinity?
I bet even Jesus got tired of his wife's shit.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2016, 08:02:50 PM
Has the argument morphed to whether someone who thinks Christ is divine, son of god, came to earth to save us, etc., etc. is NOT Christian if they don't believe in the Trinity?
Iirc that was the position Sheilbh took up thread.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
I think the trinity is key. It was the subject that most divided early Christians because if you have a divine Jesus how do you also have a divine God the Father? Once you accept the divinity of Jesus you are inevitably going to end up trying to establish the nature of a singular God in (at least) two places. It's why it wracked the early Christian world and why the great cry of Islam was the unity of God which was very receptively heard.
I remembered correctly :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 25, 2016, 08:44:56 PM
I bet even Jesus got tired of his wife's shit.
She wanted answers and wouldn't stop without them: did he believe in the Apostle's Creed and did he believe in his own divinity? What were his thoughts on the trinity? But on these topics, Jesus only said things that were ambiguous. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
I love this analogy.
Jesus is Marx,
Paul is Lenin,
There are many contenders for the role of Stalin :P,
Benedict is Brezhnev,
Francis is Gorbachev? :)
Sadly not entirely mine, but everyone loves Jesus just like everyone digs Marx nowadays. You needed Paul's betrayal of Christ's message to build Christianity as an actual religion for good or bad.
Constantine as Stalin.
Luther as Mao.
Calvin as Hoxha.
Pius X as Brezhnev.
John XXIII as Gorbachev.
This is supposed to be an endorsement of Catholicism? With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2016, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
I think the trinity is key. It was the subject that most divided early Christians because if you have a divine Jesus how do you also have a divine God the Father? Once you accept the divinity of Jesus you are inevitably going to end up trying to establish the nature of a singular God in (at least) two places. It's why it wracked the early Christian world and why the great cry of Islam was the unity of God which was very receptively heard.
I remembered correctly :)
Kind of odd to argue that belief in the trinity is the key by noting that it "divided early Christians".
It cannot divide them if it defines them.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2016, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 10:47:11 AM
True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.
I think the trinity is key. It was the subject that most divided early Christians because if you have a divine Jesus how do you also have a divine God the Father? Once you accept the divinity of Jesus you are inevitably going to end up trying to establish the nature of a singular God in (at least) two places. It's why it wracked the early Christian world and why the great cry of Islam was the unity of God which was very receptively heard.
I remembered correctly :)
Kind of odd to argue that belief in the trinity is the key by noting that it "divided early Christians".
It cannot divide them if it defines them.
Yeah, that has been the counter argument.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2016, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
I love this analogy.
Jesus is Marx,
Paul is Lenin,
There are many contenders for the role of Stalin :P,
Benedict is Brezhnev,
Francis is Gorbachev? :)
Sadly not entirely mine, but everyone loves Jesus just like everyone digs Marx nowadays. You needed Paul's betrayal of Christ's message to build Christianity as an actual religion for good or bad.
Constantine as Stalin.
Luther as Mao.
Calvin as Hoxha.
Pius X as Brezhnev.
John XXIII as Gorbachev.
This is supposed to be an endorsement of Catholicism? With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Well, the same can be said about any endorsement ever made by you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 12:24:35 AM
Kind of odd to argue that belief in the trinity is the key by noting that it "divided early Christians".
It cannot divide them if it defines them.
How exactly can you believe that Jesus is the divine son of God and NOT either be a pagan or believe the Trinity? I mean you seem to be the one demanding that that defines them.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 12:24:35 AM
Kind of odd to argue that belief in the trinity is the key by noting that it "divided early Christians".
It cannot divide them if it defines them.
To somewhat switch sides in this discussion, a kind of concept of the trinity does make its way into the gospel of John (at least the portions of the trinity relating to god and jesus):
QuoteJohn 1:1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
John 1:14-18:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, "This is the one I spoke about when I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'") 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
None of this is in the synoptic gospels, which were likely written before. The gospel of john was likely included, as I mentioned earlier, for its theological content, and John 1 is probably the most important part.
Jesus is described as the "word of god", which commanded the world into existence in genesis. That seems to be a reply to those who would say the early christians were not monotheistic. Jesus as a divine being was already present in the beginning--the case was being made that christianity was as montheistic as judaism.
Genesis 1 however doesn't seem to support monotheism, but that is a separate topic.
The trinity also got awkwardly tacked on to the end of Matthew:
Matthew 28:19
QuoteTherefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Earlier versions just said 'my name'.
The trinity is also a rather silly concept, at least as perverted by Catholics.
The original Jewish and then Judeo-christian/gnostic mysticism indeed had three divine beings/aspects, but they were the male (the father), the female (the mother, or Sophia) and the synthesis of the male and female (the "son" - but the son was then expected to "mate" with another opposite principle, creating another triad and so on, in a system that was not unlike that of the Heglian thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad).
Catholics could not accept that (if anything, because it put the male and female principle on equal footing) so they came up with the sily Holy Ghost that doesn't do shit.
I seriously doubt the first century Jews were out there declaring males and females on equal footing. 'Perverted' by Catholics is ridiculous anyway. The religion was mostly invented by Greeks who, not surprisingly, put Greek ideas into it. The Trinity is a perfectly logical system in the way they thought about religion. They figured all Gods had several different 'aspects' which was why everybody seemed to have different Gods who were actually kind of similar.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 10:39:08 AM
I seriously doubt the first century Jews were out there declaring males and females on equal footing.
Or later, for that matter.
My favorite bit of (probably) medieval Jewish folklore: the creation of the mythology of "Lilith" (of "Lilith Fair" fame. ;) ).
She was an attempt to reconcile the differences between the two creation myths in Genesis (in one, man and women were created at the same time out of dust; in the other, woman was created after man, out of Adam's rib).
The reconciliation: before Eve, Adam had a "first mate": Lilith. She got chucked out for asserting that, because they were created at the same time, they were equal! :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 09:17:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 12:24:35 AM
Kind of odd to argue that belief in the trinity is the key by noting that it "divided early Christians".
It cannot divide them if it defines them.
How exactly can you believe that Jesus is the divine son of God and NOT either be a pagan or believe the Trinity? I mean you seem to be the one demanding that that defines them.
No idea, I don't believe he is the son of god, so it hardly matters to me.
But there are plenty of religious stories that involved Gods having "children" without there being a need for the idea of the trinity, just as an example.
If you think Jesus was some aspect of God, but there isn't a defined trinity per se, that seems entirely reasonable to me under the basic context of the religion.
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 10:33:49 AM
The trinity is also a rather silly concept, at least as perverted by Catholics.
The original Jewish and then Judeo-christian/gnostic mysticism indeed had three divine beings/aspects, but they were the male (the father), the female (the mother, or Sophia) and the synthesis of the male and female (the "son" - but the son was then expected to "mate" with another opposite principle, creating another triad and so on, in a system that was not unlike that of the Heglian thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad).
Catholics could not accept that (if anything, because it put the male and female principle on equal footing) so they came up with the sily Holy Ghost that doesn't do shit.
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Not for the "original Jews".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Not for the "original Jews".
Ah, wasnt' thinking in those terms, but then neither was marty. Don't know much about jewish mysticism (what Marty was talking about), but if you can plausibly date it after the start of the hellenistic period, the same thing holds true.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Aramaic. Greek mostly found in the Hellenistic cities.
Ok I misspoke about the Jewish mystics - I meant the qaballists, but these appeared much later. However, neither the original Jewish mystics had any concept of Trinity - it would have been anathema to them.
This is the one early "Catholics" took from other Middle-eastern and Greek mystic schools but changed it from a triad into a hierarchy.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Only the pretentious urbanite types - the Jewish Languishites as it were ;) - would have spoken or written Greek at the time of Jesus; the rest, Aramaic (with Hebrew as mainly a liturgical language).
Man a first century greek language Languish full of urban Jews would have been fabulous.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 12:49:43 PM
Man a first century greek language Languish full of urban Jews would have been fabulous.
I dunno, you will have to ask Grumbler if it was
really fabulous. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2016, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Only the pretentious urbanite types - the Jewish Languishites as it were ;) - would have spoken or written Greek at the time of Jesus; the rest, Aramaic (with Hebrew as mainly a liturgical language).
You guys would know better than me, but it seems the apostles had no problems evangelizing in Anatolia and Greece - presumably at least some of them could speak greek. And with the early texts written in Greek, it seems at the least those pretentious urban types may have been in on the ground floor.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2016, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 26, 2016, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Greek was the lingua franca of that portion of the Roman Empire, and the most relevant written language.
Only the pretentious urbanite types - the Jewish Languishites as it were ;) - would have spoken or written Greek at the time of Jesus; the rest, Aramaic (with Hebrew as mainly a liturgical language).
You guys would know better than me, but it seems the apostles had no problems evangelizing in Anatolia and Greece - presumably at least some of them could speak greek. And with the early texts written in Greek, it seems at the least those pretentious urban types may have been in on the ground floor.
Aramaic was the daily language in what is now Israel; however, Jews were found all over the place, and the Jews of places like Alexandria or what is now Turkey spoke and wrote Greek (as would pretentious urban types in what is now Israel).
It is thought by some that the NT was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. However, the majority view is that much of it at least was written following the writings of Paul "of Tarsus", a diaspora Jew, and aimed at Paul's communities (mainly diaspora communities & converts), that it was originally written in Greek.
There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women.
Indeed. He's got a few screws loose on
that subject. :lol:
QuoteI praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11
Seems to be a relevant passage for the burkini debate.
On the Greek thing - Aramaic become the lingua franca of much of the Achaemenid Empire and it stuck for a very long time. When the Greeks conquered the Middle East, they established Greek city-states, like Seleucia and Antioch. These were Greek-speaking, Hellenistic cities. But long, pre-existing cities like Jerusalem or Schehem would have remained predominantly Aramaic speaking, although the elite likely learned Greek. Josephus suggests that Greek speaking was uncommon and discouraged among Palestinian Jews, and that his own Greek speaking abilities were due to great effort he made. Being Josephus, one can't take everything he says at 100% face value, but it supports the notion that outside of an urban elite or those living in Greek cities, few Palestinian Jews spoke Greek with much fluency.
Greek speakers would have been thin on the ground in the Galillean villages where Jesus and the Apostles preached, and it is unlikely they spoke much Greek. Prior to Paul and the shift in emphasis on a mission to gentiles, there would not have been much cause to preach in Greek. It does appear that Paul spoke Greek, though not as a first language. Mark - the first Gospel - is composed in Greek but the styling is oft criticized, possibly indicating that it was not the writer's first language either.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?
He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2016, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 10:33:49 AM
The trinity is also a rather silly concept, at least as perverted by Catholics.
The original Jewish and then Judeo-christian/gnostic mysticism indeed had three divine beings/aspects, but they were the male (the father), the female (the mother, or Sophia) and the synthesis of the male and female (the "son" - but the son was then expected to "mate" with another opposite principle, creating another triad and so on, in a system that was not unlike that of the Heglian thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad).
Catholics could not accept that (if anything, because it put the male and female principle on equal footing) so they came up with the sily Holy Ghost that doesn't do shit.
Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?
Indeed, so it is a mystery as to why the Gospels were originally written in Greek ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?
He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.
Wait wait wait. Haven't you been constantly attacking me in this thread, and elsewhere, for not having an orthodox view?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
No idea, I don't believe he is the son of god, so it hardly matters to me.
Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.
QuoteBut there are plenty of religious stories that involved Gods having "children" without there being a need for the idea of the trinity, just as an example.
Sure! Hence what I said.
QuoteIf you think Jesus was some aspect of God, but there isn't a defined trinity per se, that seems entirely reasonable to me under the basic context of the religion.
I don't think so. At least not as the Trinity is defined. How would this be? You are either adoptionist or you believe he was begotten the Son of God. But either way the Holy Spirit is pretty key in how that is supposed to work. There is a reason why this view is so prevalent.
Explain how that is supposed to work if it is so reasonable?
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2016, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2016, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?
He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.
Wait wait wait. Haven't you been constantly attacking me in this thread, and elsewhere, for not having an orthodox view?
No, I was attacking you for saying you are a Christian. Pauline Christianity is a horrible set of ideas. No point trying to pretend you are one. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
No idea, I don't believe he is the son of god, so it hardly matters to me.
Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.
Say what?
I have not insisted in any way that you believe anything, nor do I care at all what you believe.
What in the world are you talking about?
I certianly reserve the right to categorize how *I* consider your beliefs, just as you reserve that same right for yourself.
For example, if you said you think I believe in God, even though I say I do not, I don't really care. I don't think it makes sense, but whatever.
It makes no matter to me in the least if you want to pretend to be Christian, and call yourself Christian, but that doesn't mean that I am required to expand my own definition of the word to include you.
To me, the word Christian means someone who actually believes that Christ was divine. Why you insist that I change my own thinking to accommodate your quasi-religious beliefs is rather beyond me.
Quote
QuoteBut there are plenty of religious stories that involved Gods having "children" without there being a need for the idea of the trinity, just as an example.
Sure! Hence what I said.
QuoteIf you think Jesus was some aspect of God, but there isn't a defined trinity per se, that seems entirely reasonable to me under the basic context of the religion.
I don't think so. At least not as the Trinity is defined. How would this be? You are either adoptionist or you believe he was begotten the Son of God. But either way the Holy Spirit is pretty key in how that is supposed to work. There is a reason why this view is so prevalent.
Explain how that is supposed to work if it is so reasonable?
There is a rather prevalent view that Christ was divine, and that God actually exists, amongst Christians, and you insist that that doesn't matter, yet you get hung up on the Trinity?
That is just...bizarre reasoning.
You are seriously telling me that actually believing in God is not necessary to be Christian, but believing in three aspects of God *is* necessary to be Christian?
This is what I find fascinating - not what you do or don't believe, but the contortions you are willing to go through!
Religion :rolleyes:
Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2016, 01:56:07 PM
Religion :rolleyes:
Indeed.
What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.
But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?
My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.
Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.
Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2016, 01:56:07 PM
Religion :rolleyes:
Indeed.
What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.
But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?
My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.
Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.
Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.
If you go back to your original post, you did not limit your comments to what you personally believe but what "we" think is an acceptable definition of a christian.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2016, 01:56:07 PM
Religion :rolleyes:
Indeed.
What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.
But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?
My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.
Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.
Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.
The bolded is a great point. Why should he care if he is secure in his faith.
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
(s) as [ s ] is strikethrough.
From my perspective, I think he is pretending to be a Christian, since I don't think his beliefs qualify as Christian. There is nothing I can do about that - I can't make myself believe that someone who claims ~A is actually claiming A, even if the definition of A is completely internal to myself.
And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".
I am not mocking him, I am stating what I think about his beliefs.
If he feels that my stating *his* beliefs is "mocking", then that is, again, just kind of interesting that he finds it so troubling that my categorization of his own stated belief system constitutes some kind of reason to feel insulted or ashamed. What *I* think about his beliefs cannot possibly have any effect on him, so why does he care? I am not insulting him, or demanding that he change what he thinks. I have every right and reason to decide what *I* think about his belief systems as he states it.
If he feels insulted or mocked by this, then I think the problem is with him, not with me. Either he has stated his beliefs clearly and cannot reconcile my categorization and hence feels troubled by that, or I am not understanding his beliefs, in which case I welcome his making them more clear to me.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 05:36:59 PM
And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".
I would have to take umbrage at this. Given the (very) broad range of human societies and beliefs, there are many who have been documented to not really have supernaturals beings or a being. Some of the small scale societies did not even have spirits, just vague things like fate or luck that were dealt with ritually.
If I had to really argue it (as I have done before and so I won't again), ritual is the key to religion, not supernatural beings.
Quote from: PDH on August 27, 2016, 06:46:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 05:36:59 PM
And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".
I would have to take umbrage at this. Given the (very) broad range of human societies and beliefs, there are many who have been documented to not really have supernaturals beings or a being. Some of the small scale societies did not even have spirits, just vague things like fate or luck that were dealt with ritually.
If I had to really argue it (as I have done before and so I won't again), ritual is the key to religion, not supernatural beings.
Bah, that is sophistry.
So someone always tapping his left foot, then his right foot before he steps into the batters box is "religion"?
There are a lot of different "rituals" that have nothing to do with religion. There are rituals around all kinds of completely mundane activiities, but we don't call them "religion".
Quote[size=inherit][/size][size=0.95em]NOUN[/size][/font][/size][size=inherit]
[/size]1The belief in and worship (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/worship#worship__2) of a superhuman (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/superhuman#superhuman__2) controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
That is the first result we get from google, and it sure seems pretty spot on in the context of our discussion. If you want to argue something else, take it up with Oxford.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.
It actually seems to matter to you a huge amount, and to virtually no one else. I have no idea why you, or, say, a Muslim, would call yourself Christians when you deny pretty much the defining characteristic of Christians. Why cling to a word that only fits you using a definition you have made but cannot articulate? I have no problem, for instance, in noting that i am not Christian, because I understand the generally-accepted definition of the word and note that I don't fit.
You seem to use Hindu concepts (like "a spiritual being having a human experience") more than Christian concepts. Why not call yourself Hindu, if you want to attach yourself to a major religion?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2016, 02:56:50 PM
If you go back to your original post, you did not limit your comments to what you personally believe but what "we" think is an acceptable definition of a christian.
I think you misread his post. Berkut referred to a generally accepted meaning of Christian which is, by all lights, correct. Christianity is about belief in the divine nature of the Christ and his mission on earth. I don't see why anyone would even want to call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the divinity of the Christ. The very word "christ" itself has no meaning if you don't believe in his divinity and his anointment by his god for his task.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
(s) as [ s ] is strikethrough.
I concur with Garbon here
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Lapsed Shaker.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2016, 08:50:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
(s) as [ s ] is strikethrough.
I concur with Garbon here
Oooh, burn! Garbo, you lose. Tainted forever.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:58:06 PM
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Hari Krishna
Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2016, 09:24:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:58:06 PM
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Hari Krishna
YOU GONNA GET RAPED.
My vengeful spirit is gonna get tired.
Mun Qui Bot ism.
The ancestral genius of the Ed Anger clan.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:58:06 PM
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2016, 09:46:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:58:06 PM
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America.
Ugh. NO
American Baptist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 27, 2016, 09:45:09 PM
The ancestral genius of the Ed Anger clan.
:lol:
Harlan county ancestor worship. The ones hanged are martyrs. :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2016, 08:40:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2016, 02:56:50 PM
If you go back to your original post, you did not limit your comments to what you personally believe but what "we" think is an acceptable definition of a christian.
I think you misread his post. Berkut referred to a generally accepted meaning of Christian which is, by all lights, correct. Christianity is about belief in the divine nature of the Christ and his mission on earth. I don't see why anyone would even want to call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the divinity of the Christ. The very word "christ" itself has no meaning if you don't believe in his divinity and his anointment by his god for his task.
Ok, you assert a definition, say you don't understand why anyone would disagree with it and then reassert your confidence that your proposed definition must be correct. Except there are have been Christians who have disagreed with that definition throughout history. You present a very good example of what Jacob was talking about earlier in the thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2016, 09:46:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:58:06 PM
Time to play "GUESS ED'S RELIGION"
Winner gets my respect. Losers get raped by my vengeful spirit.
Go!
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America.
Ugh. NO
But no spirit rape. Curious. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 07:26:47 PM
That is the first result we get from google, and it sure seems pretty spot on in the context of our discussion. If you want to argue something else, take it up with Oxford.
I define ritual as an anthropologist who studied religion. The dictionary is based on the English language, which you will have to agree is perhaps not about all human cultures. It certainly does exclude a few...
Get back to talking about me.
Quote from: PDH on August 27, 2016, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 07:26:47 PM
That is the first result we get from google, and it sure seems pretty spot on in the context of our discussion. If you want to argue something else, take it up with Oxford.
I define ritual as an anthropologist who studied religion. The dictionary is based on the English language, which you will have to agree is perhaps not about all human cultures. It certainly does exclude a few...
You can define anything as you like, but to actually communicate we are stuck with this pesky language thing, and we happen to be using that English one, so I am going to stick with the definitions of common terms as they are used in the common language we are using to communicate.
In that language words like "religion" have rather specific meanings, and when I am talking about religion, I am talking about the concept as defined and used in the English language. We have these handy references we often use when we are unsure about what words in this language mean, and as I expected, those references say that my definition is in fact correct, while yours is, at best, undefined. If you want to define religion in some other fashion, go ahead, but I don't find that all that interesting.
When *I* am talking about religion, I am talking about the concept commonly understood and defined within the English language.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.
I just misread the thread's title as "Jesus Wept". Which is probably more correct now. :P
Quote from: PDH on August 27, 2016, 10:24:58 PM
I define ritual as an anthropologist who studied religion.
That's just bizarre.
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2016, 12:44:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.
Doesn't really soften the words he is using.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2016, 12:44:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.
Doesn't really soften the words he is using.
So, your point is not that Berkut is "wrong" but that he is not "nice"?
That's highly subjective and really a matter of feelings, as opposed to facts. Kinda hard to argue with that one way or the other, you know...
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 10:32:23 PM
Get back to talking about me.
Ed's priest...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6Au17Y4nmTQ%2FTweT7vMH79I%2FAAAAAAAAFu8%2F0J1mohKSDh4%2Fs1600%2Fraiders%252Bof%252Bthe%252Blost%252Bark%252Bhebrew%252Bpirest%252Bwith%252Bvexilloid.jpg&hash=f078e97efeb69d579c7ea66ed822b662974dc534)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2016, 10:20:56 PM
Ok, you assert a definition, say you don't understand why anyone would disagree with it and then reassert your confidence that your proposed definition must be correct. Except there are have been Christians who have disagreed with that definition throughout history. You present a very good example of what Jacob was talking about earlier in the thread.
This is not even a good pretense of an argument. You assert that "Christians throughout history" have denied the existence of the Christian God and the divinity of Christ as evidence that Berkut and I are incorrect, but provide no support for such an assertion. You present a very good example of what we should try very hard to avoid when debating here.
Quote from: PDH on August 27, 2016, 10:24:58 PM
I define ritual as an anthropologist who studied religion. The dictionary is based on the English language, which you will have to agree is perhaps not about all human cultures. It certainly does exclude a few...
I have no idea what you are arguing here. It
seems like you are arguing that all ritual is religious, which can't seriously be your argument because we all know that such an assertion is absurd. So, it seems like you define ritual in some fashion you are unable to easily share.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2016, 12:44:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.
Doesn't really soften the words he is using.
Yep. Berkut should have used trigger warnings.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.
*cough*
(https://yooniqimages.blob.core.windows.net/yooniqimages-data-storage-resizedimagefilerepository/Detail/10232/4e45782e-1f97-4061-86f3-0771c4261f1b/YooniqImages_102320327.jpg)
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2016, 10:20:56 PM
Ok, you assert a definition, say you don't understand why anyone would disagree with it and then reassert your confidence that your proposed definition must be correct. Except there are have been Christians who have disagreed with that definition throughout history. You present a very good example of what Jacob was talking about earlier in the thread.
This is not even a good pretense of an argument. You assert that "Christians throughout history" have denied the existence of the Christian God and the divinity of Christ as evidence that Berkut and I are incorrect, but provide no support for such an assertion. You present a very good example of what we should try very hard to avoid when debating here.
Also it's a bit like ISIS in a way. Yes their theology is grounded very much in Islamic thought and texts, there are historical examples of it. However the overwhelming historical and lived experience of Islam/Christianity goes against it. These are strains of thought that arose very early and were rejected. Just because you reject the past 1500 years of Islamic history or 2000 years of Christian history does not mean that the faith you're presenting is more authentic or, in the case of ISIS, anything resembling Medieval.
And I think in both cases they are schools of thought that are in some important ways only created and adopted because of modernity. The modern experience is a condition that I think is necessary for both of these theologies even though they're obviously very divergent.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 07:10:13 AM
I have no idea what you are arguing here. It seems like you are arguing that all ritual is religious, which can't seriously be your argument because we all know that such an assertion is absurd. So, it seems like you define ritual in some fashion you are unable to easily share.
First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about? In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual. However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature. All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.
The problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing. That is the problem with ritual.
And yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge. But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from. I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.
Quote from: PDH on August 28, 2016, 08:59:55 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 07:10:13 AM
I have no idea what you are arguing here. It seems like you are arguing that all ritual is religious, which can't seriously be your argument because we all know that such an assertion is absurd. So, it seems like you define ritual in some fashion you are unable to easily share.
First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about? In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual. However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature. All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.
The problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing. That is the problem with ritual.
And yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge. But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from. I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.
I believe noone is arguing that Valmy's unitarianism is not a religion - it's just that it is not a Christian religion.
As I said before I think it is syncretic, universalistic and generalistic enough to be similar to freemasonry (which, incidentally, Valmy objected to even though I would believe it would fit your definition of religion as well). Now, as with freemasonry, you can be a Christian and Unitarian - but that does not mean that Unitarianism is by definition Christian.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 07:11:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2016, 12:44:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#
To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.
Doesn't really soften the words he is using.
Yep. Berkut should have used trigger warnings.
:lmfao:
That is exactly what I thought when I read that, but I thought apologizing for triggering Valmy would be kind of dickish... :P
What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!
valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian :)
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2016, 09:53:22 AM
What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!
Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. :o
Quote from: LaCroix on August 28, 2016, 10:42:15 AM
valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian :)
That's probably pretty spot on.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2016, 09:53:22 AM
What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!
Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. :o
True but your point seems to be that you take the side of a party that is wrong because the party that is right is a dick about it. It's like what's wrong with the SJW movement in a nutshell - ignoring truth because it's not "nice".
Now call him a kind and sensitive person.
Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. :cry:
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2016, 05:36:59 PM
And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".
Here is where it was said Valmy was not following a religion. That is what I took up. What kind of religion is even more nebulous, and I don't have a horse in THAT race :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2016, 11:09:10 AM
Now call him a kind and sensitive person.
Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. :cry:
Boner has gone soft.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2016, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2016, 09:53:22 AM
What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!
Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. :o
True but your point seems to be that you take the side of a party that is wrong because the party that is right is a dick about it. It's like what's wrong with the SJW movement in a nutshell - ignoring truth because it's not "nice".
:huh:
I've already argued that I wouldn't be prepared to call Valmy a Christian based on what he said he believes. I didn't claim though that he pretends to be a Christian or that his beliefs are quasi-religious. Nor did I ask him why he is so bothered by such claims that shouldn't have any impact on him at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2016, 11:09:10 AM
Now call him a kind and sensitive person.
Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. :cry:
Boner has gone soft.
Try to type in c u c k. I blame Jacob.
Damn Canadian. :glare:
Well, if the net of all this is that Berkut is mean because he said Valmy's religious views were "qasi-religious" I suppose I can live with that.
I suspect Valmy is not nearly as sensitive as you guys are though.
The will of Valmy can only be divined by His ordained priests. He once spoke to men, but that was long ago.
We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.
Make Languish Great Again!
Quote from: PDH on August 28, 2016, 08:59:55 AM
First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about? In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual. However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature. All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.
"We all" is the native English speakers here at Languish. That someone wrote a book or paper arguing that people standing at attention for a national anthem is either religious or it's not ritual is only evidence that people will write any damn fool thing.
Are you, in fact, arguing that all ritual is religious, or are you, in fact, agreeing with me but weaseling out of admitting it by throwing out some red herring about someone, somewhere, arguing that all ritual is, in fact, religious?
QuoteThe problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing. That is the problem with ritual.
I have no idea what you are arguing here. There are plenty of "secret rituals," so rituals themselves don't have to be all-encompassing. The argument that "ritual... must be broad and all-encompassing... that is the problem with ritual" doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think that it does need to be all-encompassing and I don't think that that is a problem with ritual.
QuoteAnd yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge. But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from. I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.
Again, this seems pretty trite to me where it isn't gibberish. Maybe the idea that ritual is widespread in human cultures comes as a surprise to someone. What "it" is that is a "foundation idea," though, is entirely unclear.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. :o
Have you ever even tried that?
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:44:37 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 28, 2016, 10:42:15 AM
valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian :)
That's probably pretty spot on.
:lmfao: I love it when people agree with stupid comments just because they think it will apply the burn to a fellow poster.
Quote from: PDH on August 28, 2016, 11:09:27 AM
Here is where it was said Valmy was not following a religion. That is what I took up. What kind of religion is even more nebulous, and I don't have a horse in THAT race :)
The problem, though, is that you disagreed with Berkut's definition of religion purely on the basis of your own self-proclaimed authority as an anthropologist. You never offered a widely-accepted alternative definition, nor even explained what was erroneous about Berkut's (and the OED's) definition. You just claimed the power to refute by diktat.
Now, I happen to think that Valmy's beliefs do qualify as religious because I think that they do involve the supernatural. I just don't think that one can claim to believe in the Christ, the "anointed one of God" while also saying that one doesn't believe the Christ was anointed and doesn't believe that there was even a god to anoint him. Valmy is free to reject my conclusion and continue to call himself whatever he wants, but he should be aware that anyone just hearing his assertion of being a Christian is being misinformed.
Grumbler -
I did in fact argue that Valmy did follow a (not quasi) religion because he practiced rituals. For the record, I think Valmy's rituals would be defined as sacred by either camp.
I have never been sure as to whether there is such a thing as a secular ritual, personally I would come down on the camp that there are secular habitual practices that differ from ritual. The rub is of course in the details. Is the emotional attachment to a lucky game day sweater that must be worn ritual behavior? What about practices to avoid bad luck that might seem rote? It is clear that part of a successful ritual (stated because there are plenty of described cases of invented rituals not taking hold, and that all rituals had to start sometime) is the eventual internalization of the practice to make it an organic and essentially understood normal action. This makes describing them from within a culture difficult.
For the record, the encompassing part talked about how any definition of ritual must make sense across all cultures who have rituals. I did get a bit dropsy in my verbiage. To limit a definition to just one culture, subsociety, or ethnic group rather misses out the point.
That said, the appeal to the masses seems trite on your part, as several seem to take issue with the same things I did. You also seem keen on finding weaseling when I am actually trying to tread carefully in order to keep my definitions as broad as I can. I am not describing one family in the Nuer tribe (sorry, Double-E), I am trying to describe cross-cultural human culture.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 02:23:21 PM:lmfao: I love it when people agree with stupid comments just because they think it will apply the burn to a fellow poster.
don't worry, grumbler, I have full faith you'd whip out your seven-point analysis and explain to all that valmy was no christian
Quote from: LaCroix on August 28, 2016, 04:03:59 PM
don't worry, grumbler, I have full faith you'd whip out your seven-point analysis and explain to all that valmy was no christian
Did you have rituals to go along with your faith? If so, it may be a religion. :lol:
I don't have seven points, just the one. It really doesn't matter to me; I think every religion is pretty much exactly equivalent to any other religion, so what you call yourself ina religious sense is just semantics as far as i am concerned. Anyone at all can call themselves a christian if they want, no matter what they believe. My point simply is that Valmy is using the word in a way that will mislead those who know the accepted definition of the word.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.
Make Languish Great Again!
I don't think that's quite the case. We left Paradox OT largely because there are (or were?) certain topics that we weren't allowed to discuss at all there.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.
Make Languish Great Again!
Don't listen to this false prophet. OHGamer was not active when Languish was first born, during the era of the Trinity of Forums.