Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Berkut]

In a material scientific sense? Nope.

Interesting - I applaud you for your consistency.

I don't think you are qualified to really call yourself a "Christian" though. Certainly not under the standard definition of the term anyway, as someone who believes that Christ manifested on Earth and died and arose to heaven, etc., etc.

[garbon]

Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian.

[Berkut]

Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian.

huh?

Words have meaning. "Christian" has meaning.

I am not "regulating" anything - I have no power to do so.

But if someone says they have some characteristic, and then proceeds to deny the very things that define that characteristic in my mind, then it hardly makes me some kind of radical to think that they don't really meet the definition as I understand it - and as I think most people understand it.

I think if you asked 100 Christians if they feel that a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he came to the Earth, died, and was resurrected was a defining characteristic of what the word "Christian" actually means, 90 of them would agree that at the least that is a necessary condition for Christianity.

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

[crazy canuck]

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

[Berkut]

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

[Admiral Yi]

I disagree. The YECs are the kings of cherry picking. They have to. Their beliefs make no sense Biblically so they have to ignore whatever is inconvenient. Like Jewish Law. Jesus says you should obey the law in some places (and very stringently at that). Peter and Jesus' brother, the dudes who knew him personally, had that understanding. Yet other things Jesus is quoted saying indicate just the opposite in other places. So what to do...

Which laws did he say to follow?  I've never heard of this.

[crazy canuck]

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

Sure, but the point you made earlier was that it was a cop out for Christianity to (I think you put it "back out of material science" or something like that) and you used the early earthers as an example of more honest Christians.  In fact the Vatican, for one, does not back away from the study of science and your assertion that early earthers are the honest ones really only applies the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate interpretation.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian.

Mitt Romney- not a Christian

[Valmy]

Which laws did he say to follow?  I've never heard of this.

All of them.

Matthew 5:18

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

And the writer of Matthew is really big on the Law.

As were James and Peter. Paul disagreed and this was a point of controversy but then he didn't actually know Jesus like the other two guys did he?

[Valmy]

In a material scientific sense? Nope.

Interesting - I applaud you for your consistency.

I don't think you are qualified to really call yourself a "Christian" though. Certainly not under the standard definition of the term anyway, as someone who believes that Christ manifested on Earth and died and arose to heaven, etc., etc.

Well the Fundies would certainly agree with you

But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

I do think there is a long historical tradition of people with my views actually. But yeah I wouldn't be a Christian if I had to believe otherwise. I guess I could try to find another name but really what is the difference? I go to Church on Sunday and praise Jesus and pray to God. I donate money to the poor and all that. Seems like I am in the club to me (and naturally in the most true and best part of it )

[Valmy]

I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.

Hence I call myself a Unitarian, which is a kind of Christian.

[Razgovory]

Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

[crazy canuck]

But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

What do two Protestants do when they meet?  They disagree and start their own churches.   

[Eddie Teach]

I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.

Hence I call myself a Unitarian.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God <snip> And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

Pretty sure John was saying that Jesus was God here.

[Valmy]

Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.