Define "Liberal Christian"...

[TomJoe]

I didn't want to derail the other thread where this issue was brought up (The IIDB and Promoting Atheism thread), so I figured I'd start a thread here on the issue.

It's always interesting to see, IMO, how people define things. Seebs and I have had this conversation over at CF, with somewhat limited results IMO, and so we may as well open up the conversation here.

What is a liberal Christian? What is liberal Christianity?

Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered liberal? Is it a combination of particular elements?

[viscousmemories]

I think a lot of people who might be inclined to answer this question have already done so in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1105), TomJoe. So you might want to start by reading that. Nevertheless I think it's good to have a new thread, since that one is old and a bit derailed at points.

Anyway I don't debate religion with people much at all, so if I were to use the phrase "liberal Christian" I would define it at the outset, and if someone else used it I'd ask them what they mean by it. In my limited experience around here though, it seems most people use it to mean "Christians who hold politically liberal stances."

[livius drusus]

Good question, TomJoe. I have to say it's a pretty muddled label in my mind. My first response is to say it's a Christianity whose adherents espouse positions widely defined as politically liberal: nonjudgemental on issues of sex and sexuality, pro church-state separation, pro legal abortion even if morally opposed to abortion itself, pro government aid to people in need, etc. Add to that a non-literal understanding of the Bible to back up said positions and voila! Liberal Christianity.

However, I realize that that's kinda bullshit and I'm basically defining "liberal Christian" as "person who thinks like liv did when she was a Christian". It's a bit of a square peg/round hole thing too, because there are enitire denomenations I consider liberal Chrisitianity -- Catholics, Episcopalians, Quakers, and more -- but of course, there are individuals and subsets and splinter groups who I would not define as liberal, just as there are individuals and subsets and splinter groups of non-liberal denoms -- Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, and more -- I would define as liberal.

Does that help? If you need any more muddling, please don't hesitate to give me a call.

[seebs]

My general assumption is that it's hard to define because liberals tend not to care much for precise labels.

I think one of the big questions is where the Bible fits on a spectrum from word-for-word inspired directly by God to people just like us writing about God, and this was the best such writings the early Church could find.

In some cases, "liberal" Christians hold views which are not at all in line with modern liberal politics.

At least part of it is a plain old dictionary-correct kind of liberalism; a willingness, often a desire, to change the status quo. Back when abolition was a big issue, it was a liberal issue; wanting to change things is liberalism. Today, many/most liberals are in favor of some amount of improvement in Christian treatment of gays.

The real problem is that most people aren't going to be 100% one way or the other, so you can't just pick a characteristic and say "this will be found in liberals but not in conservatives".

When CF decided to make a Congregation forum for liberals, I think there was a lot of fear that it would end up being the "homosexuals getting abortions from the children they got before they were married" forum, but in fact, most liberals don't do any of those things (although they tend to advocate tolerance for people who do).

The common misconception that liberal Christians are just watered-down Christians comes from the tendency to let the very vocal right-wingers set the agenda. But on CF, the liberal forum is full of people trying to discuss better ways to be more like Christ, and to learn to love our neighbors... And let me tell you, it's not in that forum that I've been forced to explain multiple times using small words what it is about torture that makes it bad.

The liberal forum got named "Whosoever Will, May Come"; I think that summarizes liberal Christianity. We will take any old reject that walks in off the street. We have no interest in keeping the riff-raff out. There are people I'm sure are conservative who have visited the liberal forum and been welcomed openly... Because they're not there to fight, so why shouldn't we welcome them?

I have met liberal Christians who were also, say, Catholic, and in full support of the Vatican's authority and teachings. It's possible.

[godfry n. glad]

I'd say that any christian who denies that the "Holy Bible" is the inerrant word of god is a "liberal christian."

godfry

[seebs]

I'd say that any christian who denies that the "Holy Bible" is the inerrant word of god is a "liberal christian."

I think you have to find out what they mean by "inerrant". Note that many fairly conservative Christians reject the terminology "word of god".

[Sweetie]

They believe that the Bible is neither infallible as Catholics do nor inerrant as Fundamentalists do.

They believe that the Bible is more figurative and metaphorical than literal as the Fundamentalists do, though the Catholics in this case hold a both/and, sometimes literal, sometimes figurative, usually both literal and figurative.

They usually resort to arguements which when reduced basically only mean that I believe it because it feels good or right, and it does some good for me to believe it which is what they are forced to do because if they make any certain claims they contradict their skepticism.

They usually think that any knowledge of God Himself, even however remote, is impossible as opposed to the Fundamentalist who miss the subtlety of the fact that God is beyond words but yet as opposed to the Catholics who find it more accurate to say that some can be known and some unknown, though only approximately but approximately in these cases is good enough and consistent with revelation ie: God revealing Himself particularily through Christ.

[Sweetie]

Hmmm.... :chin:

They understand better the Catholic concept of "you committed a mortal sin" and Fundamentalists understand better the Catholic concept "that is a mortal sin," Catholicism holding true to both concepts, both that is a wrong act which Liberals refuse to declare and both that there are other considerations in order to say one is guilty of a wrong act ie: intention, knoweldge, so the whole concept is lost to Liberals and Fundamentalists.

They can't establish Christ's actual existence and they'll often say even if He didn't actually exist it doesn't matter so in that sense their belief system is unfalsifiable and their militant skepticism is unalterable but yet, from such often comes contradiction IMHO.

They claim that they are more Christ-like but really don't set down any notion of how to know what Christ was like especially if they assert that Christ need not have existed for them to hold their belief system and the Bible is not necessarily anything special to go on.

[wildernesse]

In my opinion, a liberal Christian is one who is able to admit that they don't have all the answers, or maybe even that the answers they have may not be absolute. Someone who is willing to consider other points of view--and able to see that considering doesn't necessarily mean that you will agree.

[Adora]

John Shelby Spong.

[godfry n. glad]

John Shelby Spong.

There's only one liberal christian? That's him?

[TomJoe]

Thank you for the replies folks, very interesting comments, and please... keep them coming.

According to some definitions, I'm a liberal. According to others, I'm not. :)

[maddog]

I didn't want to derail the other thread where this issue was brought up (The IIDB and Promoting Atheism thread), so I figured I'd start a thread here on the issue.

It's always interesting to see, IMO, how people define things. Seebs and I have had this conversation over at CF, with somewhat limited results IMO, and so we may as well open up the conversation here.

What is a liberal Christian? What is liberal Christianity?

Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered liberal? Is it a combination of particular elements?
"Liberal" is a word which modifies "Christian," i.e., it should tell you something about "what kind of Christian" something is, as opposed to some other kind of Christian. I always get hung up, however, one step earlier in the analysis: i.e., what is a Christian? Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered [Christian]? If so, what are they? I have never had a satisfactory answer to this that Christians themselves agree on.

Anyway, I think you'll find some people will not only tell you that you are or are not liberal, they'll also be happy to tell you that you're not a "real" Christian.

Beats me all to heck. I don't know.

#227

[seebs]

Thank you for the replies folks, very interesting comments, and please... keep them coming.

According to some definitions, I'm a liberal. According to others, I'm not. :)

Like many people, I think you're actually a moderate. Compared to some people, you're pretty liberal. Compared to others, you're pretty conservative.

A lot of the problem, of course, comes from people who want to have a Good Word and a Bad Word, so people they like (and you're often in this category) have to be somehow shoehorned into the Good Word.

[Adora]

John Shelby Spong.
There's only one liberal christian? That's him?
Yep. XD

[godfry n. glad]

"Liberal" is a word which modifies "Christian," i.e., it should tell you something about "what kind of Christian" something is, as opposed to some other kind of Christian. I always get hung up, however, one step earlier in the analysis: i.e., what is a Christian?

[quote]Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered [Christian]? If so, what are they? I have never had a satisfactory answer to this that Christians themselves agree on.

#227

I'm with Maddog on this. Definition is necessary with everyone who refers to themselves as a "Christian".

seebs noted earlier that my understanding of the basic tenets of his belief were juvenile. Yet, he did not explain in what manner they were juvenile or how my understanding was incomplete or inaccurate. I'd like to know, but I'd like it brief, because I don't want to provide a platform for proselyzation. Why are you a christian, seebs? What makes you a christian? What qualifies anyone else, in your mind, to rightfully call themselves a christian?

godfry

[maddog]

"Liberal" is a word which modifies "Christian," i.e., it should tell you something about "what kind of Christian" something is, as opposed to some other kind of Christian. I always get hung up, however, one step earlier in the analysis: i.e., what is a Christian?

[quote]Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered [Christian]? If so, what are they? I have never had a satisfactory answer to this that Christians themselves agree on.

#227

I'm with Maddog on this. Definition is necessary with everyone who refers to themselves as a "Christian".

seebs noted earlier that my understanding of the basic tenets of his belief were juvenile. Yet, he did not explain in what manner they were juvenile or how my understanding was incomplete or inaccurate. I'd like to know, but I'd like it brief, because I don't want to provide a platform for proselyzation. Why are you a christian, seebs? What makes you a christian? What qualifies anyone else, in your mind, to rightfully call themselves a christian?

godfry
and will any/all other Christians agree on this definition?

Strictly speaking, however, I think this preliminary question is off-topic for the OP, but it prevents me from having anything to say about the OP at all.
#228

[godfry n. glad]

"Liberal" is a word which modifies "Christian," i.e., it should tell you something about "what kind of Christian" something is, as opposed to some other kind of Christian. I always get hung up, however, one step earlier in the analysis: i.e., what is a Christian?

[quote]Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered [Christian]? If so, what are they? I have never had a satisfactory answer to this that Christians themselves agree on.

#227

I'm with Maddog on this. Definition is necessary with everyone who refers to themselves as a "Christian".

seebs noted earlier that my understanding of the basic tenets of his belief were juvenile. Yet, he did not explain in what manner they were juvenile or how my understanding was incomplete or inaccurate. I'd like to know, but I'd like it brief, because I don't want to provide a platform for proselyzation. Why are you a christian, seebs? What makes you a christian? What qualifies anyone else, in your mind, to rightfully call themselves a christian?

godfry
and will any/all other Christians agree on this definition?

Strictly speaking, however, I think this preliminary question is off-topic for the OP, but it prevents me from having anything to say about the OP at all.
#228

But...as you began, "liberal" is naught but a descriptive modifier of "christian" in the OP, so I'd say we should agree on what "christian" means before we place one on a scale of open-mindedness, tolerance and reserve.

I can't do this, I'm not a christian. I know what other christians have told me, but this one may be different. He's already denied salvation through christ is entry into god's grace in the hereafter....so there's some difference from my mother's christianity.

My exposure was United Methodism. Grape-juice Anglicism. Coffee and doughnut christianity. Do-gooders. Nice folks. Testamental evangelicals.

I've been operating under the impression that seebs is an active member of a Friends church. That in itself, says a lot for me. Friends as I know them are meeting hall attendees. Not churches. They have no minister. So, seebs is part of a late modern heresy from and early modern heresy from the protestant heresy. And yet, he has alluded that he toys with theology within his congregation....hints of even further deviations from the norm of my experience with christian believers.

Will seebs' christianity be accepted as such by all other self-described christians? No.

I would welcome any other self-described christian's answers to the three questions I posed seebs.


godfry

(I kinda wonder whether he'll lean on the primacy of the spirit of god over scripture and teachings...)

[seebs]

seebs noted earlier that my understanding of the basic tenets of his belief were juvenile. Yet, he did not explain in what manner they were juvenile or how my understanding was incomplete or inaccurate. I'd like to know, but I'd like it brief, because I don't want to provide a platform for proselyzation. Why are you a christian, seebs? What makes you a christian? What qualifies anyone else, in your mind, to rightfully call themselves a christian?

Well, the main objection I had is that you were basically starting by ceding the entire claim to modern fundamentalists, who are only one kind of Christianity.

I generally use the short definition; follower of Jesus who was called the Christ. I don't really care about the exact theology; I accept a lot of people as "Christians" that others might not.

The problem is that a lot of Christians pitch certain interpretations or views as the only real ones, and this ends up setting the basis for all future discussion; liberals are then expected to justify their beliefs in terms of a literal and inerrant Bible.

It's like trying to ask Catholics to justify their faith based on a sola scriptura reading of the 66 books Protestants use.

[Dingfod]

In my opinion, a liberal Christian is one that believes whatever it is they want to believe personally but doesn't feel compelled to vigorously proselystize or insisting on creating a government that enforces laws that are based on theistic principles rather than secular in order to impose their particular view of moral values on society at large. A liberal Christian is respectful of the beliefs of others, even if they disagree with them. A liberal Christian worries that nonbelievers are going to hell, but doesn't go around telling them they are.

I could list off the denominations that I think are relatively liberal but it would actually be generalizing too much. There are liberal and conservative Christians in almost every church, but the liberals are quieter than the conservatives. The conservative element keeps the liberal element quiet by accusing them of not being Christian, aligning themselves with the forces of evil, the same way Republicans keep dissenters of all stripes quiet by accusing them of not being patriotic Americans, aligning themselves with Saddam and the terrorists.*

My parents, when they were religious, were liberal Christians, as were probably 75-80% of the members of the Southern Baptist Church at that time. Since then, the SBC as an organization and it's membership have been moving away from that liberal tendency for reasons that pretty much escape me. Perhaps we should blame MTV and global communications just like I do for all of the other ills of society. The times, they are a changing, and those that don't like change in that direction are changing in the other direction rather that going with the flow, back to the good old days, 1955.

*Paraphrasing something actually said by a Republican caller to an NPR program.

[godfry n. glad]

seebs noted earlier that my understanding of the basic tenets of his belief were juvenile. Yet, he did not explain in what manner they were juvenile or how my understanding was incomplete or inaccurate. I'd like to know, but I'd like it brief, because I don't want to provide a platform for proselyzation. Why are you a christian, seebs? What makes you a christian? What qualifies anyone else, in your mind, to rightfully call themselves a christian?

Well, the main objection I had is that you were basically starting by ceding the entire claim to modern fundamentalists, who are only one kind of Christianity.

I didn't think I did any such thing. I was stating what I thought to be a basic tenet of what I understood christianity to be....that is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That salvation assures one an eternal life after death in the grace of God. The basic payoff of all christianity is eternal life.

Do you deny this?



I generally use the short definition; follower of Jesus who was called the Christ. I don't really care about the exact theology; I accept a lot of people as "Christians" that others might not.

The problem is that a lot of Christians pitch certain interpretations or views as the only real ones, and this ends up setting the basis for all future discussion; liberals are then expected to justify their beliefs in terms of a literal and inerrant Bible.

No, the problem is that there is no agreement amongst those who call themselves christians as to what the term means. Being a "follower of Jesus who was called the Christ" doesn't say squat. It means nothing. It conveys no meaning of what it is to be a follower. What are the requirements to be a christian?

Please answer the question.

It's like trying to ask Catholics to justify their faith based on a sola scriptura reading of the 66 books Protestants use.

Not at all, we've just gotten started on definition. Now, if you'd just cooperate, rather than tapdance, we'd get a lot further in a shorter period of time.

I've asked you to define and you hedge. Give us qualifications for being "a follower of Jesus called the Christ."

godfry

[maddog]

I generally use the short definition; follower of Jesus who was called the Christ. This is so devoid of content for me as to be meaningless.

Again, though, I'm afraid this is technically a derail of TomJoe's questions. Perhaps we three should take it outside?
#230

[seebs]

I didn't think I did any such thing. I was stating what I thought to be a basic tenet of what I understood christianity to be....that is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That salvation assures one an eternal life after death in the grace of God. The basic payoff of all christianity is eternal life.

Do you deny this?

At least partially. First off, we don't know what "faith" is. Secondly, the idea that it was "life after death" was hardly universal. Some early believers were a Jewish sect who believed in no afterlife, and they converted, not out of interest in the afterlife, but out of interest in changes in this one.

Furthermore, "payoff" is a questionable thing. Not all Christians teach that this is about any kind of "payoff". As some point out, if you could earn it, it wouldn't be grace.

No, the problem is that there is no agreement amongst those who call themselves christians as to what the term means.

Indeed.

Being a "follower of Jesus who was called the Christ" doesn't say squat. It means nothing. It conveys no meaning of what it is to be a follower. What are the requirements to be a christian?

The only one I'd impose is "self-identifying as a follower of the Christ". I don't think there are any other requirements to "be a Christian".

I've asked you to define and you hedge. Give us qualifications for being "a follower of Jesus called the Christ."

I think it's self-explanatory. I allow for self-identification. I don't really see any practical way to assign requirements beyond that.

[livius drusus]

Again, though, I'm afraid this is technically a derail of TomJoe's questions. Perhaps we three should take it outside?

Yes please.

[godfry n. glad]

[quote]Being a "follower of Jesus who was called the Christ" doesn't say squat. It means nothing. It conveys no meaning of what it is to be a follower. What are the requirements to be a christian?

The only one I'd impose is "self-identifying as a follower of the Christ". I don't think there are any other requirements to "be a Christian".

I've asked you to define and you hedge. Give us qualifications for being "a follower of Jesus called the Christ."

I think it's self-explanatory. I allow for self-identification. I don't really see any practical way to assign requirements beyond that.

So...basically the whole exercise of referring to oneself as a christian is pointless. It has no referential basis at all. It means nothing to be a christian. Bupkis. It's whatever somebody thinks it is for themselves.

godfry

oh...alright...where shall we go guys?

[seebs]

So...basically the whole exercise of referring to oneself as a christian is pointless. It has no referential basis at all. It means nothing to be a christian. Bupkis. It's whatever somebody thinks it is for themselves.

I think it has no meaning, beyond what I already offered, that is entirely consistent. Welcome to the land of fuzzy logic. There are many claims you can make about Christians with surprisingly high confidence; some perhaps in the 95% range. But... It is the cluster of related things that's at issue, and since you can't really have a probabilistic definition like that, I simplify to self-identification.

There are plenty of people who self-identify as Christian without meeting someone else's standards for what the word should mean. Who cares? It's good enough to let you draw reasonable, if not perfect, inferences.

[godfry n. glad]

So...basically the whole exercise of referring to oneself as a christian is pointless. It has no referential basis at all. It means nothing to be a christian. Bupkis. It's whatever somebody thinks it is for themselves.

I think it has no meaning, beyond what I already offered, that is entirely consistent. Welcome to the land of fuzzy logic. There are many claims you can make about Christians with surprisingly high confidence; some perhaps in the 95% range. But... It is the cluster of related things that's at issue, and since you can't really have a probabilistic definition like that, I simplify to self-identification.

There are plenty of people who self-identify as Christian without meeting someone else's standards for what the word should mean. Who cares? It's good enough to let you draw reasonable, if not perfect, inferences.

The thing is seebs, you're not a christian.

godfry

Bonus questions: Who "called" him christ, this Jesus? Why?

[godfry n. glad]

I didn't think I did any such thing. I was stating what I thought to be a basic tenet of what I understood christianity to be....that is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That salvation assures one an eternal life after death in the grace of God. The basic payoff of all christianity is eternal life.

Do you deny this?

At least partially. First off, we don't know what "faith" is.

Y'know, seebs, neither do I. I use it in a colloquial manner, but that usage hardly matched any meaning I can associate with the ever-present usage of this word amongst self-identified christians. Man, it's popular.

Secondly, the idea that it was "life after death" was hardly universal. Some early believers were a Jewish sect who believed in no afterlife, and they converted, not out of interest in the afterlife, but out of interest in changes in this one.

Yep...that was some of 'em. As a matter of fact, belief in an afterlife is an idiosyncratic sectary belief of the late 2nd Temple period Judaism. Fairly limited in spread, from what I understand. And even then, it was probably picked up by its exposure to the Zoroastrians after the captivity in Babylon. Syncretic, in other words.

Furthermore, "payoff" is a questionable thing. Not all Christians teach that this is about any kind of "payoff". As some point out, if you could earn it, it wouldn't be grace.

Then why bother with worship? If you have no impact upon grace in this life, then what does it matter what you do? Do what is best for you, your family, your community.

No, the problem is that there is no agreement amongst those who call themselves christians as to what the term means.

Indeed.

I knew we agreed on something. :yup:

godfry

[viscousmemories]

So if everyone who self-identifies as a Christian has to subscribe to some universal definition of the term or they're not a real Christian in your view, then why are you asking him to define the word? You obviously must know the 'true' definition if you're able to determine that he doesn't qualify.

[godfry n. glad]

So if everyone who self-identifies as a Christian has to subscribe to some universal definition of the term or they're not a real Christian in your view, then why are you asking him to define the word? You obviously must know the 'true' definition if you're able to determine that he doesn't qualify.

No, vm... Everyone who self-describes themselves as a christian should be able to tell us by what right, reason or rhyme they call themselves that. I don't care if it differs from that of other self-described christians....as a matter of fact, I've made it clear that it wouldn't surprise me. But to not be able to tell a non-believer what makes one a christian seems very out of the ordinary.

I don't have his definition. If I expect to converse with him about christianity, and I know that there are variant strains of this belief system and that those strains often believe something widely at odds with other strains....

(Did you ever know a Seventh-Day Adventist? Really nice folks. Very good on nutrition and health. Big supporters of health care and hospitals. Ask one some time about the Roman Catholic Church.)

well....

then I like to ask the self-identified christian what it is s/he uses as the determinant of identifying as such.

Which is what I have done and not yet gotten a satisfactory answer.

godfry

[seebs]

The thing is seebs, you're not a christian.

Depends on whom you ask. I meet the historical standard (assent to the claims in the Nicene Creed.)

Bonus questions: Who "called" him christ, this Jesus? Why?

So far as I can tell, early Christians, who were called that because they thought Jesus was the Christ.

[seebs]

Y'know, seebs, neither do I. I use it in a colloquial manner, but that usage hardly matched any meaning I can associate with the ever-present usage of this word amongst self-identified christians. Man, it's popular.

Indeed. But then, people talk a lot about love, and don't always agree on what that means either.

Then why bother with worship? If you have no impact upon grace in this life, then what does it matter what you do? Do what is best for you, your family, your community.

Because it seems to work. I don't know that I have any impact on grace, but I can make changes in how well I accept it.

If someone gives me a scholarship, it's up to me to decide whether or not to attend classes, no?

Here's the concrete thing: I go to meeting for worship, and I come home with a clearer view of my life, and the things in it. Good enough for me.

I knew we agreed on something. :yup:

Yup. :) The thing is... The word turns out to be pretty useful shorthand, even though its claims are purely probabilistic.

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know, seebs, neither do I. I use it in a colloquial manner, but that usage hardly matched any meaning I can associate with the ever-present usage of this word amongst self-identified christians. Man, it's popular.

Indeed. But then, people talk a lot about love, and don't always agree on what that means either.

That's true. But if you tell me that you know what love is; isn't it natural for me to ask you to tell me? Rather than tell me, as I've asked, you tell me people might not agree. You tell me something I already know, while failing to answer my question. Why don't you tell me, then we'll know if we agree. Or not. Then I can cross-reference it with all the other christian claims I've heard.

Then why bother with worship? If you have no impact upon grace in this life, then what does it matter what you do? Do what is best for you, your family, your community.

Because it seems to work. I don't know that I have any impact on grace, but I can make changes in how well I accept it.

If someone gives me a scholarship, it's up to me to decide whether or not to attend classes, no?

What scholarship? What classes?

Here's the concrete thing: I go to meeting for worship, and I come home with a clearer view of my life, and the things in it. Good enough for me.

Well, I'm glad. I have no objections. Transcendental meditation works for some I know. Others just think they're doing Zen, when they're doing zazen, but that's just fine. Others do yoga or exercise and say the same thing. I'm just curious as to whether it's necessary for you to go to meeting for worship. I'm interested in whether you could, instead, be worshipping in your wood shop while you fashion a new chair for the house? Or, pulling weeds in your garden? (Y'know, prjna paramita :peace3: ) Is the whole process of going somewhere really needed? Why? What is your worship, and why is it important to worship in that manner?

I knew we agreed on something. :yup:

Yup. :) The thing is... The word turns out to be pretty useful shorthand, even though its claims are purely probabilistic.

Well, shorthand is only good to the one using it, unless it's a standard accepted by multiple users. Unique shorthand is nothing but code. Is that the idea? Are we talking Pascal's Wager here?

Tell me what you think it means.

We can then crib it all about with attributions to warn off those who might think you were making some kind of absolute claim. Will that work?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

The thing is seebs, you're not a christian.

Depends on whom you ask. I meet the historical standard (assent to the claims in the Nicene Creed.)

Bonus questions: Who "called" him christ, this Jesus? Why?

So far as I can tell, early Christians, who were called that because they thought Jesus was the Christ.

Ah!

There we go. :ovation: Some kind of standard. A credo...the Nicene Creed, to be sure.

Well, seebs, that's a pretty definite set of beliefs. And very standard. From my understanding, this creed underlies christian belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and the various protestant sectaries.

If you ascribe to the tenents of the Nicene Creed, I will retract my statement that you are not a christian.

As I understand it, Unitarians fall outside this pale. Strong is the belief there that Jesus was human and a righteous teacher, a chosen teacher of the divine. The Nicene asserts that Jesus is divine. It's triune, too, IIRC.

Those pesky Latter Day Saints are dubious, too. I don't know about those other splinter christians.

Why so reluctant to state the credo?

godfry

[seebs]

That's true. But if you tell me that you know what love is; isn't it natural for me to ask you to tell me? Rather than tell me, as I've asked, you tell me people might not agree. You tell me something I already know, while failing to answer my question. Why don't you tell me, then we'll know if we agree. Or not. Then I can cross-reference it with all the other christian claims I've heard.

Right.

But what I really think the word means is just, very broadly, one who follows Jesus. And yes, I'm aware that there are many different ways to do this. I consider all those different people to be different kinds of Christians, and see no real benefit to trying to select some as more-real than others.

I can't really tell you what love is. I can tell you about it. I could spend months talking about it. But in the end, I can't come close to capturing it truly. The best I can do is start by pointing out that there is more than one thing called "love".

Well, I'm glad. I have no objections. Transcendental meditation works for some I know. Others just think they're doing Zen, when they're doing zazen, but that's just fine. Others do yoga or exercise and say the same thing. I'm just curious as to whether it's necessary for you to go to meeting for worship.

Nope. I just like it.

I'm interested in whether you could, instead, be worshipping in your wood shop while you fashion a new chair for the house? Or, pulling weeds in your garden? (Y'know, prjna paramita :peace3: ) Is the whole process of going somewhere really needed? Why? What is your worship, and why is it important to worship in that manner?

For me, a certain amount of stillness and prayer is useful, and I have a hard time with this; I am not a still person. Furthermore, I like the companionable silence, and the occasional talking. We had someone once who spoke at length, using first-person language to describe the love of God for us. It was a fascinating experience. I am inclined to accept it at face value; it certainly sounded like the sorts of things God is always saying.

Well, shorthand is only good to the one using it, unless it's a standard accepted by multiple users. Unique shorthand is nothing but code. Is that the idea? Are we talking Pascal's Wager here?

Well, my usage is pretty close to an inclusive set of all the usages I've encountered. Basically, if people say they're Christian, I generally take their word for it, and let them tell me about what kind of Christian they are.

Tell me what you think it means.

We can then crib it all about with attributions to warn off those who might think you were making some kind of absolute claim. Will that work?

Sure. What I think it means is very close to circular; one who follows Jesus. As it happens, though, there's enough common material around about what Jesus was like that there's a fair amount of common ground. But, for instance, I know atheist Christians, and I see no reason to call them non-Christian.

If you ascribe to the tenents of the Nicene Creed, I will retract my statement that you are not a christian.

Okay, here's the thing. I happen to believe them, but I do not consider them crucial to Christianity. In other words, I believe things which are not required by my definition of Christianity. So, I'm a Christian even by some fairly rigorous definitions, although not all Quakers are. (That said, I would consider most Quakers "Christians", except for the rare ones who would actually disclaim the title.)

Why so reluctant to state the credo?

Because I feel it distracts from the business at hand. ChristianForums has taught me that people can assent to every word of that credo, while spitting in the face of the Gospel, and that people can reject one or two phrases, and still be walking representations of everything Jesus stood for. So, I dislike the creed; not because it's false, but because it's distracting, and it is too easy to conclude false things from it.

[viscousmemories]

That's funny. I just looked up the Nicene Creed to see what y'all are talking about, and realized it's the thing I had to recite in church every Sunday in my youth. :P

[godfry n. glad]

That's true. But if you tell me that you know what love is; isn't it natural for me to ask you to tell me? Rather than tell me, as I've asked, you tell me people might not agree. You tell me something I already know, while failing to answer my question. Why don't you tell me, then we'll know if we agree. Or not. Then I can cross-reference it with all the other christian claims I've heard.

Right.

But what I really think the word means is just, very broadly, one who follows Jesus. And yes, I'm aware that there are many different ways to do this. I consider all those different people to be different kinds of Christians, and see no real benefit to trying to select some as more-real than others.

I can't really tell you what love is. I can tell you about it. I could spend months talking about it. But in the end, I can't come close to capturing it truly. The best I can do is start by pointing out that there is more than one thing called "love".

Well, I'm glad. I have no objections. Transcendental meditation works for some I know. Others just think they're doing Zen, when they're doing zazen, but that's just fine. Others do yoga or exercise and say the same thing. I'm just curious as to whether it's necessary for you to go to meeting for worship.

Nope. I just like it.

The best reason of all.

Tell me what you think it means.

We can then crib it all about with attributions to warn off those who might think you were making some kind of absolute claim. Will that work?

Sure. What I think it means is very close to circular; one who follows Jesus. As it happens, though, there's enough common material around about what Jesus was like that there's a fair amount of common ground. But, for instance, I know atheist Christians, and I see no reason to call them non-Christian.

Heh...common material...yeah, you could say that. Well, I'd be a bit of a pedant here, just because I personally think the concept of atheist christians is ludicrous. The christ term is a marker, an indicator of the power and connection to the god. It comes from a Greek translation of a Hebrew term, which is conveyed directly into English as "the messiah". This messiah was to lead the Hebrew peoples into the direct governance of their god and push the goyim out of the promised land. In the Hebrew, the word for the messiah means "the anointed", literally from the anointment of high priests and kings as official spokespersons of god on earth. Messiahs were the "chosen of god". How can an atheist believe in the annointed of god? Do they follow the koine Greek rendering of the term and think it means ointment?

If you ascribe to the tenents of the Nicene Creed, I will retract my statement that you are not a christian.

Okay, here's the thing. I happen to believe them, but I do not consider them crucial to Christianity. In other words, I believe things which are not required by my definition of Christianity. So, I'm a Christian even by some fairly rigorous definitions, although not all Quakers are. (That said, I would consider most Quakers "Christians", except for the rare ones who would actually disclaim the title.)

Understood. You would probably consider the Unitarian who thinks Jesus was merely a human, but an inspired one whose teachings need a great deal of gleaning and interpretations....maybe even a chosen of god...but not divine (ergo, violating the NC), as still being a christian. Particularly if their behavior was of a compassionate and caring community member?

Why so reluctant to state the credo?

Because I feel it distracts from the business at hand. ChristianForums has taught me that people can assent to every word of that credo, while spitting in the face of the Gospel, and that people can reject one or two phrases, and still be walking representations of everything Jesus stood for. So, I dislike the creed; not because it's false, but because it's distracting, and it is too easy to conclude false things from it.

Oh, understood entirely. I obviously don't agree with the creed at all, but it does clarify exactly what it is that qualifies as a christian. And I understand that you wish me to understand that there is blurring in even the Creedal definition of christian in terms of "qualifiers". Whether they walk their talk is another matter and entirely for the evaluation of those with whom they deal.

You're more orthodox than I thought. But still pretty liberal.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "the Gospel"?

godfry

[seebs]

Nope. I just like it.

The best reason of all.

I thought so!

Heh...common material...yeah, you could say that. Well, I'd be a bit of a pedant here, just because I personally think the concept of atheist christians is ludicrous.

I did too for a long time, but I met one. I know someone who goes to a Catholic church, tries to live a life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and yet, can't conceive of a creator outside the universe. But... She's obviously Christian.

The christ term is a marker, an indicator of the power and connection to the god. It comes from a Greek translation of a Hebrew term, which is conveyed directly into English as "the messiah".

Yes. And to be fair, maybe I should call atheist Christians "Jesus people" or something. (Only that name's taken.)

How can an atheist believe in the annointed of god? Do they follow the koine Greek rendering of the term and think it means ointment?

I think they can believe in a moral teacher of particular quality, or a set of moral claims.

Understood. You would probably consider the Unitarian who thinks Jesus was merely a human, but an inspired one whose teachings need a great deal of gleaning and interpretations....maybe even a chosen of god...but not divine (ergo, violating the NC), as still being a christian. Particularly if their behavior was of a compassionate and caring community member?

Yeah.

There's a lot of fuzzy logic here. I have a UU friend whom I'm sure is not a Christian, but whom I consider to be a very good person.

But... There's a lot of traits, and I tend to see it as fuzzy. But if I need a definition, I go with self-identification.

Because I feel it distracts from the business at hand. ChristianForums has taught me that people can assent to every word of that credo, while spitting in the face of the Gospel, and that people can reject one or two phrases, and still be walking representations of everything Jesus stood for. So, I dislike the creed; not because it's false, but because it's distracting, and it is too easy to conclude false things from it.

Oh, understood entirely. I obviously don't agree with the creed at all, but it does clarify exactly what it is that qualifies as a christian. And I understand that you wish me to understand that there is blurring in even the Creedal definition of christian in terms of "qualifiers". Whether they walk their talk is another matter and entirely for the evaluation of those with whom they deal.

Indeed.

It goes further than that, though. Our words are not the things they describe. Creeds tend to put words in authority over the things they are attempts to describe.

In short... Imagine a set of truths. We write these truths down as best we can, using words. The words are not the truths.

At least some people will assent to the words, but not the truths. At least some people will assent to the truths, but not the words.

The creed has not actually solved the problem of identifying who true believers are. Worse, it presupposes that there is some benefit to doing so!

You're more orthodox than I thought. But still pretty liberal.

Yeah. I'm a weird cross between frighteningly conservative (I refuse to swear oaths 'cuz Jesus said not to) and mind-numbingly liberal (I do not give a flying fuck at the moon whether gay people go at it like rabbits).

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "the Gospel"?

The teachings of Jesus. The key, I think, is the twofold message:
1. You don't need to follow elaborate rules. Just love your neighbor as yourself, and love God.
2. Actually, you can't do that either, and it's okay.

Christianity does not impose rules on us; it tells us that we will fall short anyway, and it's covered. What we do have is a great deal of advice about how to try to do better, and this advice is, I think, very good.

I think there's a constant tension between legalism and license. There's the desire to get the Set Of Rules that we can follow and it'll be okay. Only even if there were one, we couldn't actually follow it, so we wouldn't be okay... But there isn't one. At the same time, people seem to assume that it doesn't matter what you do. Of course it matters. Screwing up may not send you to hell, but it will make people sad. And that's worse in a way.

Really, I can't put it into words. Here's the shorthand version. I don't know what all those words about "dying for our sins " mean. But I can tell you this: According to the Gospel, the most perfect judge possible has evaluated every human being, and found that person to be worth dying for. I believe my job in life is to try to find what He saw in every person. So far, I have not been disappointed. There are a few people about whom I cannot yet figure out what's so cool about them... But so few that I feel it's reasonable for me to assume that the flaw is in my vision, not their worth.

[godfry n. glad]

That's funny. I just looked up the Nicene Creed to see what y'all are talking about, and realized it's the thing I had to recite in church every Sunday in my youth. :P

Ah, yes.... Most christian training includes this. It's usually the bottom line for consideration as a "Christian". I rather agree with seebs, though, that adherence to the spirit is more important than to the letter, but in terms of extra-sectarian discussion, it's a pretty good starting point, from which specific truncations, amendations, exceptions or extensions can be clearly delineated.

godfry

[seebs]

Ah, yes.... Most christian training includes this. It's usually the bottom line for consideration as a "Christian". I rather agree with seebs, though, that adherence to the spirit is more important than to the letter, but in terms of extra-sectarian discussion, it's a pretty good starting point, from which specific truncations, amendations, exceptions or extensions can be clearly delineated.

Ironically, when I did go to a church with a creed (Lutheran), it was the Apostles' Creed. CF doesn't use that because it includes Mormons and JWs. (Whom I consider Christians.)

[godfry n. glad]

Nope. I just like it.

The best reason of all.

I thought so!

Heh...common material...yeah, you could say that. Well, I'd be a bit of a pedant here, just because I personally think the concept of atheist christians is ludicrous.

I did too for a long time, but I met one. I know someone who goes to a Catholic church, tries to live a life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and yet, can't conceive of a creator outside the universe. But... She's obviously Christian.

The christ term is a marker, an indicator of the power and connection to the god. It comes from a Greek translation of a Hebrew term, which is conveyed directly into English as "the messiah".

Yes. And to be fair, maybe I should call atheist Christians "Jesus people" or something. (Only that name's taken.)

Followers of the Jesus from Nazareth, the Nazties? Or the Nazjeez?

You're more orthodox than I thought. But still pretty liberal.

Yeah. I'm a weird cross between frighteningly conservative (I refuse to swear oaths 'cuz Jesus said not to) and mind-numbingly liberal (I do not give a flying fuck at the moon whether gay people go at it like rabbits).

That sounds pretty typical for most Quakers I know.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be "the Gospel"?

The teachings of Jesus. The key, I think, is the twofold message:
1. You don't need to follow elaborate rules. Just love your neighbor as yourself, and love God.
2. Actually, you can't do that either, and it's okay.

Christianity does not impose rules on us; it tells us that we will fall short anyway, and it's covered. What we do have is a great deal of advice about how to try to do better, and this advice is, I think, very good.

...

I can tell you this: According to the Gospel, the most perfect judge possible has evaluated every human being, and found that person to be worth dying for. I believe my job in life is to try to find what He saw in every person. So far, I have not been disappointed. There are a few people about whom I cannot yet figure out what's so cool about them... But so few that I feel it's reasonable for me to assume that the flaw is in my vision, not their worth.

I don't see how the second usage arises from the first. Perhaps I'd better get you to define these "teachings of Jesus". How do I know the teachings, this Gospel, of Jesus when I see or hear them?

godfry

Thank you very much for your response to my requests for clarification. You've been very kind.

[Mustaphile]

I think of myself as a liberal christian because I'm liberated from orthodox interpretation, orthodox understanding and orthodox practice. My liberal label is my badge of freedom. It's a rallying point for all those seeking release from bondage. ;)

[seebs]

Followers of the Jesus from Nazareth, the Nazties? Or the Nazjeez?

If only I could come up with a name that would shorten to "Nazgul".

That sounds pretty typical for most Quakers I know.

Yes. It came as rather a shock to me; I spent something like fifteen years building up a theology that allowed me to explain my experiences of the world, and about a week later stumbled across people who had written it down three hundred years earlier.

I don't see how the second usage arises from the first. Perhaps I'd better get you to define these "teachings of Jesus". How do I know the teachings, this Gospel, of Jesus when I see or hear them?

If you're willing to accept a whole bunch of assumptions, you could just sorta read the New Testament. But reading it carefully involves studying the Old Testament as well, reading up on period culture and language, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

The argument can be made that I can't prove whose teachings these are, but the resulting set of teachings works, so I'm okay with it.

Thank you very much for your response to my requests for clarification. You've been very kind.

No problem. It's been interesting.

[godfry n. glad]

I think of myself as a liberal christian because I'm liberated from orthodox interpretation, orthodox understanding and orthodox practice. My liberal label is my badge of freedom. It's a rallying point for all those seeking release from bondage. ;)

Are you liberated from the Nicene Creed?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Followers of the Jesus from Nazareth, the Nazties? Or the Nazjeez?

If only I could come up with a name that would shorten to "Nazgul".

Mary Magdelen? She da Nazgul.

That sounds pretty typical for most Quakers I know.

Yes. It came as rather a shock to me; I spent something like fifteen years building up a theology that allowed me to explain my experiences of the world, and about a week later stumbled across people who had written it down three hundred years earlier.

Oh, the Quakers are a most interesting subset of the christian ranks. They have been one of the most positive religious influences in American history, and that extended to having a fairly substantial influence upon events at a critical juncture in British history. It is an influence far beyond what one would expect given their relatively small proportion of the society. My father, a skeptic's skeptic, applied for membership when he was a young man. He decided not to make the commitment, though, and I grew up with a respect for the members of the Society of Friends.

I don't see how the second usage arises from the first. Perhaps I'd better get you to define these "teachings of Jesus". How do I know the teachings, this Gospel, of Jesus when I see or hear them?

If you're willing to accept a whole bunch of assumptions, you could just sorta read the New Testament. But reading it carefully involves studying the Old Testament as well, reading up on period culture and language, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

The argument can be made that I can't prove whose teachings these are, but the resulting set of teachings works, so I'm okay with it.

Oh, I understand. I'm a bit of a dilletante on the historical development of the scriptures and the historicity of Jesus, so I've taken it on to educate myself on those topics. I have some fairly idiosyncratic views on them all, most of which are probably widely at variance to yours, largely because I suspect I don't accept "a whole bunch of assumptions".

Are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar materials? If so, have you opinions of them?

Thank you very much for your response to my requests for clarification. You've been very kind.

No problem. It's been interesting.

Likewise, I'm sure.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, and thanks for the info on the Apostle's Creed. I did not know that the Lutherans used it over the Nicene. I also did not know that there was a difference which allowed inclusion of the Mormons and the JW as christians.

How is that?

godfry

[seebs]

Yes. It came as rather a shock to me; I spent something like fifteen years building up a theology that allowed me to explain my experiences of the world, and about a week later stumbled across people who had written it down three hundred years earlier.

Oh, the Quakers are a most interesting subset of the christian ranks. They have been one of the most positive religious influences in American history, and that extended to having a fairly substantial influence upon events at a critical juncture in British history. It is an influence far beyond what one would expect given their relatively small proportion of the society. My father, a skeptic's skeptic, applied for membership when he was a young man. He decided not to make the commitment, though, and I grew up with a respect for the members of the Society of Friends.

From my own experience, anyway, as someone who has disproportionate influence over things... I think I accept their traditional explanation; if you are open to the Spirit, stuff happens.

I am occasionally accused of being exceptionally patient. From my privileged position as the person actually doing these things, I can assert that I'm not actually patient; I'm being assisted in acting in a patient manner by something other than me. This is very useful, and it makes me happy.

Oh, I understand. I'm a bit of a dilletante on the historical development of the scriptures and the historicity of Jesus, so I've taken it on to educate myself on those topics. I have some fairly idiosyncratic views on them all, most of which are probably widely at variance to yours, largely because I suspect I don't accept "a whole bunch of assumptions".

Are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar materials? If so, have you opinions of them?

Not hugely familiar. Mildly. I think they tend to be pushing a bit of an agenda, but I still like the material. A friend of mine is a very big fan of text criticism, and from that I've acquired a certain amount of comfort with the notion that a lot of stories might have been added in later.

And yet... It works. For all I know, some of the stories which were added in later were true stories no one realized they should write down.

Oh, and thanks for the info on the Apostle's Creed. I did not know that the Lutherans used it over the Nicene. I also did not know that there was a difference which allowed inclusion of the Mormons and the JW as christians.

How is that?

The Apostle's Creed is much lighter on trinitarian doctrine. It's an earlier creed, from before some of the heresies were concluded to be heresies. I have higher confidence in the claims in that one.

But it allows some of the groups that mainstream Christians like to call "cults" to be called Christians. Which, IMHO, is a good thing. The Mormons I've known have been pretty good Christians. I admit that many of their beliefs strike me as just plain wacky. I also don't care. My beliefs are pretty wacky too. So what? We live in a pretty weird world.

[Sweetie]

The Nicene Creed asserts a God who is a Trinity and a Christ who is God. Mormons stray from one of those teachings, JW's the other. Liberals to me just tend to confuse the issue with smokescreens and no basis from which to evangelize from. For instance, well, the common understanding of Christ. *Looks around* but Christ didn't exist. So that to me says, the myth of Christ but then, why are you praying and who are you praying to?

Because it does me good, it works for me.

Why do you assert Christ over any other? Well, the Nicene Creed. Why the Nicene Creed over the Gnostics Creed or some such? Well, because the Nicene Creed fits my definition of Christ better. Aren't you assuming the definition of Christ because of the Nicene Creed and the Bible? If one goes back the Nicene Creed and Bible, one gets back to the Catholic Church. Well, I dislike organized religion. But your religion comes from an organized religion, it just suits you better. In fact, your religion probably wouldn't exist at all in this day and age if not for organization, monks handwriting the Bible, the Bishops making a cannon of the Bible, etc. Oh, but it would've existed even without organization because Christ is true or some such.

I don't know. It's a mess to me.

[Sweetie]

As Catholics we recite the Apostle's Creed every Sunday, though Lutheran's have a mildly different version, if my attendance at a Lutheran funeral with a recitation and my inability to recite alongside because it was different means that.

The Nicene Creed we recite on special occasions so to speak but it is the from the Council of Nicea.

[godfry n. glad]

Yes. It came as rather a shock to me; I spent something like fifteen years building up a theology that allowed me to explain my experiences of the world, and about a week later stumbled across people who had written it down three hundred years earlier.

Oh, the Quakers are a most interesting subset of the christian ranks. They have been one of the most positive religious influences in American history, and that extended to having a fairly substantial influence upon events at a critical juncture in British history. It is an influence far beyond what one would expect given their relatively small proportion of the society. My father, a skeptic's skeptic, applied for membership when he was a young man. He decided not to make the commitment, though, and I grew up with a respect for the members of the Society of Friends.

From my own experience, anyway, as someone who has disproportionate influence over things... I think I accept their traditional explanation; if you are open to the Spirit, stuff happens.

I am occasionally accused of being exceptionally patient. From my privileged position as the person actually doing these things, I can assert that I'm not actually patient; I'm being assisted in acting in a patient manner by something other than me. This is very useful, and it makes me happy.

Same stuff comes out of philosophical Taoism, various Buddhist sectaries and other mystic traditions. I've never experienced such. If it works for you, it works. So do placebos.

So I take it that you probably acquiese to the idea that scripture is not necessarily sacrosanct anyway. Is that right? It's merely a guide to the spirit...right? No bibliolatry? No idolatry? No oaths? Submission to god, but to no other human? Humility?

Is the "spirit" equated a lot to "the light"?

Oh, I understand. I'm a bit of a dilletante on the historical development of the scriptures and the historicity of Jesus, so I've taken it on to educate myself on those topics. I have some fairly idiosyncratic views on them all, most of which are probably widely at variance to yours, largely because I suspect I don't accept "a whole bunch of assumptions".

Are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar materials? If so, have you opinions of them?

Not hugely familiar. Mildly. I think they tend to be pushing a bit of an agenda, but I still like the material. A friend of mine is a very big fan of text criticism, and from that I've acquired a certain amount of comfort with the notion that a lot of stories might have been added in later.

And yet... It works. For all I know, some of the stories which were added in later were true stories no one realized they should write down.

True, maybe. Then again, maybe none of them are true stories.

I'm a big fan of John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack. Crossan is closely associated with the Westar project that became the Jesus Seminar. It's most closely associated with Robert Funk. They, of course, did have an agenda. That agenda was to widen the discussion of the nature of the "real Jesus" beyond the walls of the seminaries. I think they succeeded quite well, thank you. Not that I agree with their assessment, but they've generated a great deal of lay discussion about the nature of the founding figure of christianity and what his probable teachings really were. The product, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? - The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar is a worthy read, if you are at interested in scripture associated with this Jesus you know as the Christ. This work, by the way, vm, is the work of about 2000 biblical scholar specialists, working as a group over several years. They approached every part of the five gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & Thomas) with discussion and debate and then cast colored marbles as to their opinion of the authenticity of the various teachings. The result is the New Testament printed in four different colors, each indicating a variant level of confidence in its authenticity as the word of Jesus.

Along with this, for the more scholarly, I recommend Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture....his Lost Christianities would help the reader understand the milieu, but ...Corruption... demonstrates the process whereby certainty in the authenticity of scripture is eroded.

One of my favorite authors in the field of New Testament development is Burton Mack, whose Who Wrote the New Testament? is very high upon my list of recommended reads on the development of early christian thought and where the various writings originated. His most recent book, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy is one of the most thought provoking. I would in particular recommend this to seebs. The second half of the book delves into where Mack thinks christianity needs to go from here...in the 21st century.

Lastly, to all those skeptics out there, I recommend that Robert M. Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? is a skeptic's joy. It is a succinct statement of response to the typical christian claims on the part of their savior from a scholar involved in the study of the scriptures. Price is a mythicist, which is where I find myself most closely aligned intellectually regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Oh, and thanks for the info on the Apostle's Creed. I did not know that the Lutherans used it over the Nicene. I also did not know that there was a difference which allowed inclusion of the Mormons and the JW as christians.



How is that?

The Apostle's Creed is much lighter on trinitarian doctrine. It's an earlier creed, from before some of the heresies were concluded to be heresies. I have higher confidence in the claims in that one.

It certainly could be...the Nicene dates from the early 4th century CE, there was plenty of time for other creeds to have developed and spread in a very pluralistic and contentious religious environment. There had been a least two hundred and fifty years of unfettered teaching and theological development. What happened after the Nicene was the hunting out of heresies and suppression of unorthodoxy. Then came the push to intellectually subjegate the polythesists and apatheists....the infidels. In concert with the "state"...the emperor, at least.

But it allows some of the groups that mainstream Christians like to call "cults" to be called Christians. Which, IMHO, is a good thing. The Mormons I've known have been pretty good Christians. I admit that many of their beliefs strike me as just plain wacky. I also don't care. My beliefs are pretty wacky too. So what? We live in a pretty weird world.

Ah, yes.... the morons and witless come to my door selling their dreams.

I live on the edge of Mormon country. I find them to be a very clannish people. But then, with that set of ridiculous dogmas, I can see why. I've found them to be personable and dependable folks, if a little stand-offish. My father's stereotype of the Mormons was quiet, hard-working men and women who could make water run uphill. As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, I have very little undersanding except for their eschatology being in the forfront of their appeal to nonbelievers....the world will end soon. Beyond that and their penchant to go doorknocking in embarrassed little family groups, I'm not familiar with the idiosyncracies of their belief system. They are the Watchtower folks, aren't they?

My favorite christian sectarian joke:

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian Universalist?
Someone who comes knocking on your door, but they're...not...quite...sure....why.

It's the sabbath if you're Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist!

godfry

[TomJoe]

You bastards have hijacked my thread! :P

Anyways, back to my original point for the time being, about Liberal Christianity... well hell, there really is no point any longer I suppose, since the discussion has long since passed us by onto new and more interesting points of discussion (not that I would consider the Jesus Seminar interesting or worthy of discussion... sorry godfry)...

However, I have always been distressed by people who claim to be Christian, who run around qualifying that Christianity. I always get the distinct impression that while they're try to describe themselves, they're in effect limiting the scope of their influence (now whether or not anyone here thinks that Christians have any influence is another issue entirely).

Seebs already knows my stance on this issue, as we've talked about it before.

I hate the phrases liberal and conservative. They're fine for politics, but when it comes to faith, IMO they have no place. Why? Because I invariably find that most people who will apply these terms to themselves, in doing so, wind up highlighting some of the things that Christians should do, at the detriment of neglecting others.

For instance, liberal Christians will strongly advocate social justice issues (typically considered the Corporal Works of Mercy by Catholics) but neglect issues of apologetics and evangelism (typically considered Spiritual Works of Mercy). And conservatives do the exact opposite, more apt to try to defend orthodoxy, but neglect to clothe the naked, feed the poor, etc. Now obviously there is cross-over in both groups, but something invariably suffers as people establish agendas. And I think that it is this schizophrenia which turns some (not all, but some) people off to Christianity.

Perhaps my flaw is that I don't consider myself a "Christian" as much as I consider myself "Catholic" so I refuse to bother with the extra qualifiers. In the greek (Katholikos), means "universal" and to qualify the term "universal" is IMO, oxymoronic. If I'm a liberal Catholic, I'm not really Catholic (IMO) because I'm only interested in the more liberal aspects of my faith, and how can you be "partly universal"? Makes no sense to me.

Anyways, I think it's pretty much how I figured it. No matter who you're talking to on this issue, liberal will mean different things to different people, even to the liberals themselves.

Oh well... carry on with the "What's a Christian?" question now... :)

[godfry n. glad]

You bastards have hijacked my thread! :P

Anyways, back to my original point for the time being, about Liberal Christianity... well hell, there really is no point any longer I suppose, since the discussion has long since passed us by onto new and more interesting points of discussion (not that I would consider the Jesus Seminar interesting or worthy of discussion... sorry godfry)...

Hey, don't apologize to me, man. I'm sorry about hijacking your thread.

Let's see...not consider Jesus Seminar interesting or worthy of discussion, eh? Probably because you've got your nose in John P. Meier or Raymond Brown. They are the ones packing imprimatur these days. Of course, Mel Gibson speaks from a far more archaic catholic tradition.

I hate the phrases liberal and conservative. They're fine for politics, but when it comes to faith, IMO they have no place. Why? Because I invariably find that most people who will apply these terms to themselves, in doing so, wind up highlighting some of the things that Christians should do, at the detriment of neglecting others.

For instance, liberal Christians will strongly advocate social justice issues (typically considered the Corporal Works of Mercy by Catholics) but neglect issues of apologetics and evangelism (typically considered Spiritual Works of Mercy). And conservatives do the exact opposite, more apt to try to defend orthodoxy, but neglect to clothe the naked, feed the poor, etc. Now obviously there is cross-over in both groups, but something invariably suffers as people establish agendas. And I think that it is this schizophrenia which turns some (not all, but some) people off to Christianity.

I guess in my book, when applied to religious categorization, "liberal" tends to mean "less rigid about dogma issues" and "more willing to adapt to changing circumstances with reinterpretation", whereas conservative is more intent on maintaining the status quo of dogmatic teaching or recapture "earlier", "more genuine" teachings from a more ancient corpus (if possible). That's kinda my spin on it, as a total outsider.


Perhaps my flaw is that I don't consider myself a "Christian" as much as I consider myself "Catholic" so I refuse to bother with the extra qualifiers. In the greek (Katholikos), means "universal" and to qualify the term "universal" is IMO, oxymoronic. If I'm a liberal Catholic, I'm not really Catholic (IMO) because I'm only interested in the more liberal aspects of my faith, and how can you be "partly universal"? Makes no sense to me.

So... are you a catholic, or a Roman Catholic? I've always been amused by the term Roman Catholic (often referred to as the RCC). It is a glaring oxymoron. Roman is geographically specific, while Catholic desires to contain the entire universe.

Anyways, I think it's pretty much how I figured it. No matter who you're talking to on this issue, liberal will mean different things to different people, even to the liberals themselves.

Yes, indeedy. I once knew the vice president of a major (Fortune 500) timber company. He called himself a liberal....in the 18th century sense of the word. His compatriots described him as having political leanings somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

Oh well... carry on with the "What's a Christian?" question now... :)

You're all right with that?

You see, I was under the assumption that there was going to be a split off from the main thread. But I had things I wanted to ask in the meantime....

:qsigh:
godfry

[seebs]

Same stuff comes out of philosophical Taoism, various Buddhist sectaries and other mystic traditions. I've never experienced such. If it works for you, it works. So do placebos.

Yup. But it worked before I had a theory about what it was.

So I take it that you probably acquiese to the idea that scripture is not necessarily sacrosanct anyway. Is that right? It's merely a guide to the spirit...right? No bibliolatry? No idolatry? No oaths? Submission to god, but to no other human? Humility?

I dunno. I tend to think it's more than "just a book", but not, say, a co-eternal part of God. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking. I tend to think that bibliolatry is a Very Bad Thing.

Is the "spirit" equated a lot to "the light"?

Probably, I think. All such terminology is necessarily a little fuzzy, as people try to cram very big things into very small words.

True, maybe. Then again, maybe none of them are true stories.

Yeah. But I tend to think that's less likely.

Not that I agree with their assessment, but they've generated a great deal of lay discussion about the nature of the founding figure of christianity and what his probable teachings really were.

Agreed. And this, I think, is very helpful.

They approached every part of the five gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & Thomas) with discussion and debate and then cast colored marbles as to their opinion of the authenticity of the various teachings. The result is the New Testament printed in four different colors, each indicating a variant level of confidence in its authenticity as the word of Jesus.

Interesting! I mean, interesting, like, I'm tempted to see if local bookstores carry it.

They are the Watchtower folks, aren't they?

Yup.

[TomJoe]

Hey, don't apologize to me, man. I'm sorry about hijacking your thread.

It's quote alright. I've been known to hijack a thread or two in my lifetime. :)

Let's see...not consider Jesus Seminar interesting or worthy of discussion, eh? Probably because you've got your nose in John P. Meier or Raymond Brown. They are the ones packing imprimatur these days. Of course, Mel Gibson speaks from a far more archaic catholic tradition.

Well, I've done my fair share of reading William Lane Craig, J.P. Meier, J.P. Holding, Dominic Crossan and Luke Timothy Johnson (amongst others). Honestly, the whole subject doesn't do much for me. I've got a familiarity with the subject material, its just, when the opportunity to discuss it arises, my juices don't flow.



I guess in my book, when applied to religious categorization, "liberal" tends to mean "less rigid about dogma issues" and "more willing to adapt to changing circumstances with reinterpretation", whereas conservative is more intent on maintaining the status quo of dogmatic teaching or recapture "earlier", "more genuine" teachings from a more ancient corpus (if possible). That's kinda my spin on it, as a total outsider.

It's as good a definition as any, and I imagine most people would agree with that as well.



So... are you a catholic, or a Roman Catholic? I've always been amused by the term Roman Catholic (often referred to as the RCC). It is a glaring oxymoron. Roman is geographically specific, while Catholic desires to contain the entire universe.

Oy, you've struck my pet peeve. When the Catholic Church entitles the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, I'll start calling myself a Roman Catholic. In the meantime, I'm Catholic... it just happens that the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church resides in Rome.

Yes, indeedy. I once knew the vice president of a major (Fortune 500) timber company. He called himself a liberal....in the 18th century sense of the word. His compatriots described him as having political leanings somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

Heh, too true. If I go back and look at some of the definitions, it would appear that the Catholic Church is liberal. Afterall, it was the protests (and legal proceedings started) by Catholics which got the Bible pulled from public schools as well the Catholic Church having no official position on evolution (other than to say that one can believe in it as long as holding some obvious theological tenants... the same exact position they take when approaching the ID, YEC or OEC position as well)... two things that people said qualified people as "liberal".

However, I'd like to see someone call Pope John Paul II a "liberal". Just the sound of that name sends some of them screaming, blood pouring out of their ears.

You're all right with that?

You see, I was under the assumption that there was going to be a split off from the main thread. But I had things I wanted to ask in the meantime....


Yes, it's no biggie to me. I don't mind seeing people duke it out :D . Sorry if you held back unnecessarily. Of course, if someone else wants to start a different thread... be my guest.

[godfry n. glad]

I tend to think that bibliolatry is a Very Bad Thing.

As I suspected. This places you outside the tradition of being scripturally bound. It's the primacy of the spirit of god that prevails over fallible scripture.


They approached every part of the five gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John & Thomas) with discussion and debate and then cast colored marbles as to their opinion of the authenticity of the various teachings. The result is the New Testament printed in four different colors, each indicating a variant level of confidence in its authenticity as the word of Jesus.

Interesting! I mean, interesting, like, I'm tempted to see if local bookstores carry it.

If it's a bookstore of any sophistication, it should be there. If not, it's orderable...guaranteed.

There are those who think the Jesus Seminar is predominated by the philosophy of the liberal christian sectaries. The catholics have Meier and Brown as an answer. Meier's A Marginal Jew trilogy is an impressive piece of scholatiscism done under the imprimatur of the church.
The works of John Dominic Crossan, particularly The Birth of Christianity, are superb, and he has his scholarship based in catholicism, starting as a catholic priest, and then leaving the priesthood in the midst of his intellectual and scholarly journey through the inception of christianity.

godfry

(...from whence comes the Roman then? Was it not to distinguish it from the Byzantine Catholic Church? Or the Alexandrian Catholics? Or the Syrian Catholic Church? Or Marionite Catholics? Or the Avignon Catholics...I think there were multiple claimants for the title of Catholic Church at one point. At one point the catholic church had three different spiritual leaders....that part of the "universal" program?)

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, don't apologize to me, man. I'm sorry about hijacking your thread.

It's quote alright. I've been known to hijack a thread or two in my lifetime. :)

Let's see...not consider Jesus Seminar interesting or worthy of discussion, eh? Probably because you've got your nose in John P. Meier or Raymond Brown. They are the ones packing imprimatur these days. Of course, Mel Gibson speaks from a far more archaic catholic tradition.

Well, I've done my fair share of reading William Lane Craig, J.P. Meier, J.P. Holding, Dominic Crossan and Luke Timothy Johnson (amongst others). Honestly, the whole subject doesn't do much for me. I've got a familiarity with the subject material, its just, when the opportunity to discuss it arises, my juices don't flow.

Yeah, I know. My wife used to think I was nuts because of my enthusiasm for the topic. She was a Jew, so after I'd spent about five years studying the historicity of Jesus, she asked me what I thought. I informed her that I considered myself a militant agnostic atheist who thought it just as probable that Jesus was a complete mythic construct with there having actually been an actual living person who served as the germinal model for the central character of the Jesus of the basic gospel scriptures of the New Testament. There is insufficient evidence to make the determination definitive.

Her response? "Yeah, so what? You think that's something new? That's pretty much what my people have thought for two millenia, only they just said he was a fake."

She was not impressed.

I was not, and am not, impressed with J.P. Holding. I consider him to be a polemicist of the worst type. William Lane Craig is a more typical evangelical apologist. Timothy Luke Johnson is a fine evangleical theologian, but a piss poor historian, and I strongly disagree with his position vis a vis the historical Jesus. I respect both Meier and Crosson. I've a whole long list of other scholars I respect, too. Just ask.

I guess in my book, when applied to religious categorization, "liberal" tends to mean "less rigid about dogma issues" and "more willing to adapt to changing circumstances with reinterpretation", whereas conservative is more intent on maintaining the status quo of dogmatic teaching or recapture "earlier", "more genuine" teachings from a more ancient corpus (if possible). That's kinda my spin on it, as a total outsider.

It's as good a definition as any, and I imagine most people would agree with that as well.

Yeah, it's kinda generic. Thanks.

However, I'd like to see someone call Pope John Paul II a "liberal". Just the sound of that name sends some of them screaming, blood pouring out of their ears.

Nope...He's a "return to the status quo after the liberals rocked the boat and got us off course" conservative. No more Liberation Theology....stinkin' commie christians. He's helping drive all the energy out of the Catholic church. How's priest recruitment going these days? Rather like the Army Natonal Guard in the U.S., eh?

godfry

[rigorist]

One of my favorite authors in the field of New Testament development is Burton Mack, whose Who Wrote the New Testament? is very high upon my list of recommended reads on the development of early christian thought and where the various writings originated. His most recent book, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy is one of the most thought provoking. I would in particular recommend this to seebs. The second half of the book delves into where Mack thinks christianity needs to go from here...in the 21st century.


Burton Mack. Uggh.

Absolutely brilliant. Great ideas. But what a turgid writer! I've made no less that FIVE tries to slog through A Myth of Innocence and failed to make it through the first one hundred pages.

Bultmann is an easier read than Mack, and that's saying a lot!

[seebs]

However, I have always been distressed by people who claim to be Christian, who run around qualifying that Christianity. I always get the distinct impression that while they're try to describe themselves, they're in effect limiting the scope of their influence (now whether or not anyone here thinks that Christians have any influence is another issue entirely).

I actually tend to agree with this. On another site I hang out on, CF, I've stuck with the "plain old Christian" icon simply because I don't think anything else is useful. I am still not entirely sure about the Congregation forums; they have potential, but I sometimes worry whether they aren't making things worse.

Anyways, I think it's pretty much how I figured it. No matter who you're talking to on this issue, liberal will mean different things to different people, even to the liberals themselves.

Indeed. This is one of the problems with words. Ironically, I think the lack of definition is the saving grace of the word "liberal"; the alternative is rigid definitions which turn out to make things worse. Liberals have a lot more options than fundamentalists...

[seebs]

As I suspected. This places you outside the tradition of being scripturally bound. It's the primacy of the spirit of god that prevails over fallible scripture.

To be picky, I don't necessarily think scripture is fallible; I think the question is irrelevant. Even if scripture is flawless, my interpretation is fallible.

I have no infallible source. I do my best with what I have.

[godfry n. glad]

As I suspected. This places you outside the tradition of being scripturally bound. It's the primacy of the spirit of god that prevails over fallible scripture.

To be picky, I don't necessarily think scripture is fallible; I think the question is irrelevant. Even if scripture is flawless, my interpretation is fallible.

I have no infallible source. I do my best with what I have.

Thank you for the distinction.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

One of my favorite authors in the field of New Testament development is Burton Mack, whose Who Wrote the New Testament? is very high upon my list of recommended reads on the development of early christian thought and where the various writings originated. His most recent book, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy is one of the most thought provoking. I would in particular recommend this to seebs. The second half of the book delves into where Mack thinks christianity needs to go from here...in the 21st century.


Burton Mack. Uggh.

Absolutely brilliant. Great ideas. But what a turgid writer! I've made no less that FIVE tries to slog through A Myth of Innocence and failed to make it through the first one hundred pages.

Bultmann is an easier read than Mack, and that's saying a lot!

Now...now...that's a bit extreme. I'll agree that Myth of Innocence is not an easy read. Who Wrote...is a much easier read, being oriented to more of a layman reader market.

Bultmann is rough, for sure. James Robinson is worse.

godfry

[Sweetie]

[
To be picky, I don't necessarily think scripture is fallible; I think the question is irrelevant. Even if scripture is flawless, my interpretation is fallible.



You used the term "flawless" to imply "infallible" but of course, flawless means something more like "inerrent".

Infallible does not mean flawless to us. Authoritative, true, maybe, but not flawless in the sense some might mean it.

But quite right, what use is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? What use is revelation at all if we can't know what is or is not revelation, etc?

[Sweetie]

I don't know, :P , I think Tom caused the thread hijack....*ahem*:

Define "Liberal Christian"

[FormerFundie2004]

What is a liberal Christian? What is liberal Christianity?

Are there elements which must be present, in order for it to be considered liberal? Is it a combination of particular elements?

Since I'm a liberal Christian, I'll add my two cents.

Open-mindedness most of the time will make you liberal. As a Christian, being liberal means you are willing to question the Bible and interpret it differently from the way it has traditionally been read. You consider that definitions and boundaries may change with time. Liberal Christians realize that ultimate truth was not realized 2,000 years ago and is now fixed; they see humanity as on a path to truth, that we are getting closer and closer to finding ultimate truth as we understand ourselves and the world around us better.

[Mustaphile]

I think of myself as a liberal christian because I'm liberated from orthodox interpretation, orthodox understanding and orthodox practice. My liberal label is my badge of freedom. It's a rallying point for all those seeking release from bondage. ;)

Are you liberated from the Nicene Creed?

godfry

Yes. If my beliefs incidently line up with the Nicene Creed, thats not bondage. That's coincidence.

[TomJoe]

How's priest recruitment going these days? Rather like the Army Natonal Guard in the U.S., eh?

Actually, from what I've read, vocations are on the rise again. A generation inspired by Pope John Paul II, rather than oppressed by him.

[viscousmemories]

I was raised as a Catholic, but in a somewhat strange environment.

My Mom was in the convent from age 15 to 19, so she had a strong Catholic background. I believe my Dad was Catholic as a child, but he mostly grew up on the streets. We attended a Catholic church every Sunday throughout my youth, regardless of what other religious activities or groups we were involved in at the time. I have never been to a church of any other denomination.

Before my parents divorced in 1975, they were involved in the Focolare movement (http://www.rc.net/focolare/), and Synanon (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/synanon.html). However I was only seven when they divorced, so I don't remember either group.

After the divorce my Mom joined another charismatic Christian organization called The Word of God (which I believe is now called Washtenaw Covenant Community). The WOG started in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1968. When we joined it in 1975 there were approximately 2000 members. Over the years sister communities sprouted up in other cities, then countries. And before long the global network of groups adopted the name The Sword of the Spirit (http://www.swordofthespirit.net/website/). This group had regular prayer meetings with people praying with their hands in the air, speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc.

When you were involved with the Word of God, you were a full-time, hardcore conservative Christian. Worship happened multiple times daily, not just on Sunday. As I said we did continue to attend a Catholic church on Sundays, but we would also have prayer meetings Sunday nights, youth activities on Saturday, "Lords Day" meal Saturday night (including extensive bible reading and prayers before and after dinner), and a lot of other stuff. Christian wasn't just a label, it was a fully encompassing way of life. As kids our lives were much like the kids in the movie Footloose. No rock music, dating, wearing of make-up for the girls, etc. When my junior high had sex education my Mom sent a letter to the school demanding that I be sent to the library during it, and I was.

Everything we did was supposed to reflect the belief. Some of the WOG members were business owners, and they would hire other WOG members almost exclusively. The members built or bought houses next door to each other in a deliberate "clustering" strategy, so whole neighborhoods could be saturated with WOG people. They started a publishing company "Servant Publications", which pumped out hundreds of titles on the subject of living as a Christian, the vast majority written by the elders of the community. One controversial title was Man and Woman in Christ, a larger than the bible detailed guideline of the separate roles for men and women in the community.

When it seemed that the Catholic church was getting a little too liberal (in the mid-80's) one of the community elders had an audience with the Pope and secured permission to start a Catholic "fellowship" in Ann Arbor, called "Christ the King Catholic Fellowship" (it is now called Christ the King Catholic Church (http://www.rc.net/lansing/ctk/)). The fellowship was ostensibly open to all Catholics, but given the fact that it wasn't in a stable location for years, it's safe to assume only WOG members attended.

Anyway I was always a skeptic, and when my Mom hedged and fudged answers to some of the tougher philosophical questions I raised, I began to suspect she and others were just making it up as they went along. After a few years of acting out in the wildest possible ways (between age 13 and 16), I rejoined the WOG and went to live in a "service house" with a number of other single men, in a cluster neighborhood with one of the founders of the WOG.

In the few months I lived there I used to go to one of the neighbors house to sing, pray and lay prostrate before God for a few hours every morning, in addition to all the other neighborhood prayer dinners, meetings, bible studies, church on Sunday, etc. I only lasted a few months, though. Then I gave into the temptation to return to drinking, smoking, masturbation and all the other things I missed about living in sin.

So, if you had asked me what a "liberal Christian" was in 1990, I wouldn't have even accepted the label. I would have said they were not "true Christians" unless they lived as we in the WOG did. I believed that secular humanism was on par with satanism, feminism was equivelant to witchcraft, homosexuality was a sinful, degenerate lifestyle, abortion was genocide and pretty much everything to do with sexuality outside of a married man and woman having sex in the missionary position only when they intended to procreate was wrong, etc.

When I got out of the Army in the late 80's I moved in with a couple other WOG kids who were all grown up and had rejected their religious upbringing as I had. We partied a lot and talked about philosophy just about as much. I started reading existential literature and dating a woman who encouraged me to reconsider my views on feminism, homosexuality, abortion and other issues. I read The New Our Bodies, Ourselves, saw the film Torch Song Trilogy, and just generally opened my mind to the idea that everything I had been taught was wrong.

The more I learned, the more I felt like I had been betrayed by the adults in my life. Instead of encouraging me to expand my horizons and learn about things from a broad perspective, I had been counselled to shun any viewpoints that contradicted the religious instruction I'd received. For a long time I was angry about it, and I avoided my whole (in my opinion completely brainwashed) family almost entirely for about 10 years.

Only since I started participating on these boards in the last couple of years have I started to see Christians as people with diverse views and varied beliefs beyond the rigid, fundamentalist, biblical literalist, and isolationist upbringing I had. So while it's very unlikely that I will suddenly find some appeal in Christianity beyond the generic sort of golden rule type stuff I appreciate from it, I'm no longer threatened or offended by it. And as a result of recent conversations with some of my siblings I've come to realize many of them aren't fundamentalists or literalists either.

So now when someone says they're a liberal Christian, I just smile and say "How so?"

[seebs]

How's priest recruitment going these days? Rather like the Army Natonal Guard in the U.S., eh?

Actually, from what I've read, vocations are on the rise again. A generation inspired by Pope John Paul II, rather than oppressed by him.

Honestly, JP2 is pretty cool. I can think of Catholic leaders I'd much less be comfortable with as Pope. I fear Ratzinger; I think he means well, but I think he's too close to rejecting the very people the Church should be reaching out to.

[godfry n. glad]

I think of myself as a liberal christian because I'm liberated from orthodox interpretation, orthodox understanding and orthodox practice. My liberal label is my badge of freedom. It's a rallying point for all those seeking release from bondage. ;)

Are you liberated from the Nicene Creed?

godfry

Yes. If my beliefs incidently line up with the Nicene Creed, thats not bondage. That's coincidence.

Understood. It's congruence.

The Nicene Creed includes several articles of faith...things believed...as I understand it, most organized christians think it necessary to believe all the articles of faith included in one of the creeds in order to "be a christian".

My question would then be, what is it that you use as a reason for calling yourself a christian? Is there an article of belief that you hold that qualifies you?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

How's priest recruitment going these days? Rather like the Army Natonal Guard in the U.S., eh?

Actually, from what I've read, vocations are on the rise again. A generation inspired by Pope John Paul II, rather than oppressed by him.

Honestly, JP2 is pretty cool. I can think of Catholic leaders I'd much less be comfortable with as Pope. I fear Ratzinger; I think he means well, but I think he's too close to rejecting the very people the Church should be reaching out to.

I must confess, I know little about current internal politics of the catholic church....any of them. Those lapsed catholic friends of mine still seem to consider JPII as an anaethema, rather like the anti-christ. Of course, they were the type attracted to Liberation Theology and folk masses, used birth control and felt that abortion was each woman's individual choice. Radicals. Defrocked Jesuits and Benedictines. Around these parts, vocations are dwindling horrendously. Orders are closing up shop entirely. Almost all teachers in the area catholic schools are now lay. And now, the whole pederasty thing seems to have kicked it to the curb. I've been expecting the coalescence of a new American catholicism, distinct from the one centered at Rome. There seems to be a desire for community, but not at the cost of attachment to Rome. They stay away from the masses in droves.

Are we talking about the same catholic church?

godfry

[TomJoe]

I'm super short on time, but I've been having some thoughts mulling through my head for the past couple of days on this issue and I wanted to get them out into the land of the virtual before they go out into the ether by their lonesome.

A Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah. This means that people who deny Jesus' existence cannot be Christians, because how can you claim someone was the Messiah if they never existed?

Likewise, this recognition must lead to assent. What is the point in recognizing someone as the Messiah (a leader) and then refuse to follow? This means accepting Jesus' teachings.

Thirdly, I'd argue that this recognition is Triune in nature. If Jesus was mortal, obviously He is dead now, which means following Him would be pointless. You might admire Him, but following Him would be futile. Unless, of course, He is divine. If He is divine, that means that He is not dead, He is conscious of us, and He will return eventually (as He stated He would). Therefore, Christians must accept the Divinity of Christ.

There may be more, but off the top of my head, these three things are, IMO, essential to one being able to call themselves a Christian.

[seebs]

I would probably agree with that, except that I've met a couple of atheist Christians, who fit better in my fuzzy understanding of Christianity than a lot of Creed-affirming folks who reject what Jesus taught.

But mostly... I don't like the "no true Christian" game. I'm on the receiving end of that often enough to be uncomfortable with it. I'm willing to let people claim to be Christian, even if they're a little off.

If nothing else... Which sends the message "you are welcome in this group" more; telling someone they're not good enough for it, or welcoming them in?

[TomJoe]

I would probably agree with that, except that I've met a couple of atheist Christians...

Seebs, atheism and Christianity are diametrically opposed on a theological level. On certain principles (respect for life, respect for the environment, social justice issues) they may overlap, but one cannot be a Christian at the same time denying that there is a God.

But mostly... I don't like the "no true Christian" game.

Neither do I, and that is something I knew I would forget in my original comments. Humans are not perfect (some may object :P but this is how I view it), and so we're all bound to make mistakes. Therefore, we are all bound to stray from time to time... which is why I believe Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son (or at least one of the reasons why He told it). However, by simply defining the term Christian, we are going to exclude individuals. This isn't to be spiteful, it's just a consequence of defining something. Defining establishes borders. This means people will be classified as non-Christian, and others will be classified Christian. So, it's not as if I'm running around applying my "3 criteria" to people and saying "Christian, Non-Christian, Christian, Christian, Non-Christian"... because I don't have time for it. By and large, those who are non-Christian, know it, and don't care. Others who call themselves Christian, but who do not fit my criteria... I know, and I don't care. If a Buddhist wants to call himself a Christian, I can't stop him. However, I don't think this is germane to the topic itself.

I'm on the receiving end of that often enough to be uncomfortable with it. I'm willing to let people claim to be Christian, even if they're a little off.

If nothing else... Which sends the message "you are welcome in this group" more; telling someone they're not good enough for it, or welcoming them in?

The question is... what do you define as "a little off"? Definitions define things for a reason... otherwise they're not definitions.

[viscousmemories]

A Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah. This means that people who deny Jesus' existence cannot be Christians, because how can you claim someone was the Messiah if they never existed?
By what authority do you say this? I mean, what source are you citing for this definition?

Likewise, this recognition must lead to assent. What is the point in recognizing someone as the Messiah (a leader) and then refuse to follow? This means accepting Jesus' teachings.
Accepting Jesus' teachings as you understand them, or do you recognize a definitive translation?

Thirdly, I'd argue that this recognition is Triune in nature. If Jesus was mortal, obviously He is dead now, which means following Him would be pointless. You might admire Him, but following Him would be futile. Unless, of course, He is divine. If He is divine, that means that He is not dead, He is conscious of us, and He will return eventually (as He stated He would). Therefore, Christians must accept the Divinity of Christ.
I was never under the impression that modern Christians meant they were literally following Jesus, as in tagging along behind him. I always understood "following Jesus" to be an abbreviation of "following Jesus' teachings". So I don't think that's a convincing argument for necessitating divinity.

[TomJoe]

By what authority do you say this? I mean, what source are you citing for this definition?

Christianity, at it's inception, was an offshoot from Judaism. The Jews currently await their Messiah, their Christ. Now, they do not necessarily believe that the Christ will be divine, but they have a very well-defined list of criteria as to whom the Christ will be, so they'll "know him when they see him". The problem was, that when Jesus came along, most Jews didn't think Jesus fit the criteria, while some (it started with 12, grew in number slowly and at Pentecost ballooned by an additional 3,000) did. Eventually Christians were blocked from Jewish places of worship and essentially became their own religion. It's based on this original group, that I set my definition.

Accepting Jesus' teachings as you understand them, or do you recognize a definitive translation?

Well, I think most of them are pretty straight forward. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc etc.

I was never under the impression that modern Christians meant they were literally following Jesus, as in tagging along behind him. I always understood "following Jesus" to be an abbreviation of "following Jesus' teachings". So I don't think that's a convincing argument for necessitating divinity.

Sort of like Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha, though they do not expect him to return some day? I suppose I can see what you're saying here.

I'll have to think on this a bit more before I respond further.

[viscousmemories]

Christianity, at it's inception, was an offshoot from Judaism. The Jews currently await their Messiah, their Christ. Now, they do not necessarily believe that the Christ will be divine, but they have a very well-defined list of criteria as to whom the Christ will be, so they'll "know him when they see him". The problem was, that when Jesus came along, most Jews didn't think Jesus fit the criteria, while some (it started with 12, grew in number slowly and at Pentecost ballooned by an additional 3,000) did. Eventually Christians were blocked from Jewish places of worship and essentially became their own religion. It's based on this original group, that I set my definition.
Okay, thanks.

Accepting Jesus' teachings as you understand them, or do you recognize a definitive translation?
Well, I think most of them are pretty straight forward. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc etc.
Most of them are pretty straight forward? :eek:

That has never been my understanding. I mean I know a lot of them are pretty straightforward, but there are also a lot of parables and otherwise ambiguous teachings, no? I mean, if not then is there a definitive list of them somewhere? And I'm not being facetious, I was just under the impression that there was widespread disagreement about most of Jesus' precise teachings.

I was never under the impression that modern Christians meant they were literally following Jesus, as in tagging along behind him. I always understood "following Jesus" to be an abbreviation of "following Jesus' teachings". So I don't think that's a convincing argument for necessitating divinity.
Sort of like Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha, though they do not expect him to return some day? I suppose I can see what you're saying here.
Right. In fact it never even occurred to me that people might mean "following Jesus" in any other way. Is there some consensus among Christians as to what exactly Jesus has been doing in the 2000 years since he was here last? If not, how could you follow anything but the written record of his past movements?

I'll have to think on this a bit more before I respond further.
Groovy.

[seebs]

I would probably agree with that, except that I've met a couple of atheist Christians...

Seebs, atheism and Christianity are diametrically opposed on a theological level. On certain principles (respect for life, respect for the environment, social justice issues) they may overlap, but one cannot be a Christian at the same time denying that there is a God.

I use fuzzy logic on this. I agree that denying that there is a God is a big barrier to Christianity, but I know people who deny that there is a God in at least some sense, while nonetheless affirming more Christian beliefs than many people who hold to the Creed.

If a person professes faithfulness to the teachings of Jesus, and shows the fruits of the spirit, then what other word should I use? That person is faithful to one I believe to be the Christ; I must admit that they are following Him. That I believe them to hold false beliefs about Him doesn't change the path they're on.

They may occasionally point at a passing sign and say "hey, look, someone stole a sign from another highway and put it on the one we're on", or otherwise disagree with me about it... But they're on that road.

But mostly... I don't like the "no true Christian" game.

Neither do I, and that is something I knew I would forget in my original comments. Humans are not perfect (some may object :P but this is how I view it), and so we're all bound to make mistakes. Therefore, we are all bound to stray from time to time... which is why I believe Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son (or at least one of the reasons why He told it). However, by simply defining the term Christian, we are going to exclude individuals.

Right.

This is why my definition is that people who self-identify as Christian are Christian; I exclude no one, although some people may choose to exclude themselves.

This isn't to be spiteful, it's just a consequence of defining something. Defining establishes borders. This means people will be classified as non-Christian, and others will be classified Christian.

Right. But why should we want borders? A border is a way of labeling people "less my neighbor than the people inside this border". Isn't that bad?

So, it's not as if I'm running around applying my "3 criteria" to people and saying "Christian, Non-Christian, Christian, Christian, Non-Christian"... because I don't have time for it. By and large, those who are non-Christian, know it, and don't care. Others who call themselves Christian, but who do not fit my criteria... I know, and I don't care. If a Buddhist wants to call himself a Christian, I can't stop him. However, I don't think this is germane to the topic itself.

Hmm. You raise an interesting point, and honestly, I think your approach to the term eliminates much or all of the potential harm that the label can introduce.

The concern I have is that others, perhaps less mature, will take your terminology to heart, but not understand the way in which you apply it. These people may do harm as a result of their partial understanding of what you say...

The question is... what do you define as "a little off"? Definitions define things for a reason... otherwise they're not definitions.

Indeed. I don't much like definitions for things like this!

But as an example of "a little off", I would consider erroneous beliefs about the nature of God to be, in general, harmless. Where shall I draw the line? Are people who don't know what the difference between hypostatic and other unions not real Christians? What if they can't agree on whether the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father alone, or both the Father and the Son?

What if someone believes that "God" is a metaphor for human experience of love?

Somewhere between those two, I suspect, you'd draw a line and say "this error is too much". I'm not able to figure out where I'd draw that line, so I don't draw it.

In short, let me describe two people.

One, Loki (who hangs around CF sometimes), is an atheist. She does not believe in a supernatural creator; she's not even sure what we think that means. She doesn't think "miracles" happen, in the sense of things contrary to the normal laws of physics. However, she believes that Christian moral teachings are important and significant, and tries to live the life she believes Jesus called people to. She does this, not out of fear of hell or desire for heaven, but because something deep in her heart tells her that the message itself is somehow true.

Another, Gary North (who does not hang around CF) is a very firm theist. He is a Christian, and fanatical in his orthodoxy on the kinds of matters the Creed talks about. He believes every last word of it. He is trying to promote the Old Testament law as the one true revealed moral law of God, to which we should all submit. He believes that, when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, this was a bribe to be offered to those in power, not something we should do if we are actually in power. He favors the death penalty for nearly all sexual sins, and eventually wants to see the practice of non-Christian religion punished by execution.

I cannot judge them accurately; after all, I don't know them all that well.

But if I were asked to guess which of these people was more likely a sheep, and which more likely a goat, you may rest assured that theism would not be the defining characteristic that spoke to me.

[seebs]

Well, I think most of them are pretty straight forward. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc etc.

I double-dog dare you to post in the Republican forum on CF arguing that we should feed the hungry. :P

Sort of like Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha, though they do not expect him to return some day? I suppose I can see what you're saying here.

I'll have to think on this a bit more before I respond further.

That's actually a very good example. I think that, unfortunately, for some people the thought that Jesus will return becomes a stumbling block to faith. Look at all the Rapture crap. "Jesus is coming! LOOK BUSY!"

[maddog]

. . .
A Christian is someone who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah. This means that people who deny Jesus' existence cannot be Christians, because how can you claim someone was the Messiah if they never existed?

Likewise, this recognition must lead to assent. What is the point in recognizing someone as the Messiah (a leader) and then refuse to follow? This means accepting Jesus' teachings.

Thirdly, I'd argue that this recognition is Triune in nature. If Jesus was mortal, obviously He is dead now, which means following Him would be pointless. You might admire Him, but following Him would be futile. Unless, of course, He is divine. If He is divine, that means that He is not dead, He is conscious of us, and He will return eventually (as He stated He would). Therefore, Christians must accept the Divinity of Christ.

There may be more, but off the top of my head, these three things are, IMO, essential to one being able to call themselves a Christian.
Oh, dear. Now I have other questions:

What do you mean by "messiah"? Is this merely a "leader"? You say in a later post that the Jews are still waiting for their "messiah," but they have specific criteria by which to recognize him/her. If this is so, and it's so clear, (1) what are the criteria, (2) why does Jesus either meet or not meet them, and (3) how do you know? Why isn't there agreement on whether or not Jesus was the correct "messiah"?

"accepting Jesus' teachings" -- what does this mean? which teachings in particular? how can anyone be sure which are his teachings and which aren't? Are any of these teachings contradictory? If someone "follows the teachings," why is the label "Christian" necessary? Why must recognition lead to "assent"? what do you mean by that?

"Jesus can't be mortal, b/c there is no point in following someone who is dead." Whyever not? Isn't that really all we ever do when we "learn" something -- follow the example of a mortal person who either is or soon will be dead? "Following him would be futile"? How so?

"Unless he is divine -- so Christians must accept the divinity of Christ." Actually this isn't "triune." You've only made a dual distinction between mortal and divine. That's two things, not three, and only one can be true, so that's only one thing, not three. What do you mean, "Triune"? Why is divinity necessary? The "teachings," such as they are, are actually written by 2000-year-old dead human beings. That's all we have. Divinity is not only unnecessary to doing what is required (following teachings) the divinity of Jesus in and of itself was insufficient to ensure that there would be any "following" at all -- Jesus himself never wrote a word, and without mortal human beings there would have been nothing remaining of knowledge about this supposedly divine being. So divinity doesn't necessarily seem to have anything to do with it.
#239

[godfry n. glad]

By what authority do you say this? I mean, what source are you citing for this definition?

Christianity, at it's inception, was an offshoot from Judaism. The Jews currently await their Messiah, their Christ. Now, they do not necessarily believe that the Christ will be divine, but they have a very well-defined list of criteria as to whom the Christ will be, so they'll "know him when they see him". The problem was, that when Jesus came along, most Jews didn't think Jesus fit the criteria, while some (it started with 12, grew in number slowly and at Pentecost ballooned by an additional 3,000) did. Eventually Christians were blocked from Jewish places of worship and essentially became their own religion. It's based on this original group, that I set my definition.

Hmmm...You have proof that Jews are waiting for a messiah? My impression was that Jews expect a messianic age wherein the chosen people will be rewarded with the return of peace to them in the promised land under the rule of the god himself.

Your story is interesting, but Jews at that time were waiting for a very different messiah. And you're right, he needn't be divine at all, just marshal. From what I can tell, Paul took the meaning of the term Christ from the Septuagint (translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek) and twisted its meaning to apply to his martyred criminal figure, Jesus. No Jew, now or then, would accept Jesus as Messiah (or, in Greek, christ) because he's not delivered the holy land from the yoke of goyim. Indeed, one very famous and literate Jew of the time, Josephus, ascribed the superstition of the messiah to Vespasian, who was called to rule the world from Judea, where he was putting down an insurrection. One Jew selects a nearly obscure itinerant preacher reputedly executed as a criminal, while another selects a member of Roman nobility, who becomes Ceasar, ruler of the world. Point being, although one of the early teachers was Jewish, his converts were not...they were heathen Greeks. The Jewish background was adopted as a survival method in an empire that punished new sects and rewarded longevity of belief with a secure place without persecution.

By the way, one does not even have to be Jewish to be a christ. Cyrus, emperor of Persia, liberator of the Jews from their Babylonian capture, sponsor of the building of the Second Jerusalem Temple. He was a christ.

godfry

Accepting Jesus' teachings as you understand them, or do you recognize a definitive translation?

Well, I think most of them are pretty straight forward. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc etc.



Yeah, well, that seems to be the attitude of most christians. Yet, there are innumerable variations upon various themes represented in the proliferation of sectaries that emphasize one teaching or more over the others...to the extent of formally separating themselves from the others. So...in my mind...there must be serious disagreements between those who self-describe as christian as to exactly what the term means. That being the case, I try to be somewhat cognizant of those differences and clarify for myself what kind of christian I'm conversing with.

And yes, there are those who claim that some who call themselves christians are not christians...usually because of some stumbling block like the divinity of Jesus. Are they less christian for doing so?

And, like I mentioned, a group of scholars, most calling themselves christians, and scoured the "teachings of Jesus" and came back stating that very little of what is included in the New Testament can be safely and assuredly ascribed to an historical Jesus figure.

vm used the phrase, "by what authority?"...that is what I ask.

godfry

[seebs]

Hmmm...You have proof that Jews are waiting for a messiah? My impression was that Jews expect a messianic age wherein the chosen people will be rewarded with the return of peace to them in the promised land under the rule of the god himself.

Wouldn't call it proof exactly, but stillsmallvoice always refers to "the Messiah (may he come quickly!)" or something similar. So, yeah.

Patient folks.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...You have proof that Jews are waiting for a messiah? My impression was that Jews expect a messianic age wherein the chosen people will be rewarded with the return of peace to them in the promised land under the rule of the god himself.

Wouldn't call it proof exactly, but stillsmallvoice always refers to "the Messiah (may he come quickly!)" or something similar. So, yeah.

Patient folks.

Yeah, I know. I married one.

She never said anything about expecting the messiah. She denied that Jews did. That's where I got the line about the messianic age. Who's stillsmallvoice?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Who's stillsmallvoice?
I actually thought he meant in his head at first... :D

Now I assume it's a CF poster.

[seebs]

Who's stillsmallvoice?
I actually thought he meant in his head at first... :D

Now I assume it's a CF poster.

Heh. Sorry, I always assume everyone knows him. He's active at CF and C+F, at least. He's an Orthodox Jew, and a very active student of Torah, which makes him an incredible person to talk to about the Old Testament, because he has great resources for how Orthodox Jews understand the material. He is patient, kind, and interesting to talk to.

To put his contributions in perspective: Back when CF had a Protestant forum and a Catholic forum, they also had a forum for "Christians and Jews", which in practice existed because everyone loved his writings on Bible passages so much. His writing is excellent, and his collection of comments from sages is incredible.

[godfry n. glad]

Heh... Please note that Judaism is not some monolithic institution. The term "Orthodox" is used in contradistinction to "Reform" and "Conservative". And then, those calling themselves "Orthodox" are challenged by those they call "hasidim". The "hasidim" are superorthodox. Sectarianism is, and has been, an ongoing aspect of practicing Judiasm.

Then, most of the "Jews" in Israel are non-practicing, secular, cultural Jews.

My wife always used to note that once you have convened ten Jewish men, enough for a minyan, you have, at minimum, eleven opinions. With Jewish women, you can double that number.

But then, she was a lapsed Reform Jew.

godfry

[TomJoe]

Most of them are pretty straight forward? :eek:

That has never been my understanding. I mean I know a lot of them are pretty straightforward, but there are also a lot of parables and otherwise ambiguous teachings, no? I mean, if not then is there a definitive list of them somewhere? And I'm not being facetious, I was just under the impression that there was widespread disagreement about most of Jesus' precise teachings.


As a Catholic, I think there is a definitive list, which is outlined by the Catholic Church, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I believe the whole nine yards... infallible scripture and infallible interpreter. However...

... it is interesting to note that if people stray from those teachings, the Catholic Church doesn't tell them "You're not Christian." Even those falling into formal heresy (ie: intentionally teaching things contrary to the Catholic faith) are not labeled as non-Christians. So, you can reject Catholicism and not be called non-Christian.

So yes, there is disagreement about some of Jesus' teachings, but in my opinion, it does not impact one's Christianity or not. A sincere wish to accept and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ would be the criteria I would use.

Is there some consensus among Christians as to what exactly Jesus has been doing in the 2000 years since he was here last?

According to the Nicene Creed, He is seated at the right hand of the Father.

[TomJoe]

Reading at the Religious Tolerance website, I saw something which was interesting...

Who is a Christian? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn2.htm#ocrt)

Before the religious conversion of Saul/Paul, the only Christian movement seems to have been the Jewish Christian group in Palestine. It was formed by the followers of Jesus and was led by James, referred to as the brother of Jesus. They regarded themselves as a Jewish reform group. They attended and supplied animal sacrifices at the Temple, celebrated the Jewish seasonal festivals, and regarded Jesus as a Prophet anointed by God, and not in any way divine. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Trinity, priests, bishops, formal creeds, etc. were unknown to them. They only appeared decades or centuries in their future.

The earliest creed of the later Pauline Christian movement appears to have been: "Jesus is Lord." The expression is found throughout the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) and on the walls of ancient buildings "Anyone who made this declaration at their baptism was regarded as a Christian."

I wonder if a Christian can simply be defined as: a baptised individual who continues to view that baptism as an essential part of their eternal salvation.

[TomJoe]

I agree that denying that there is a God is a big barrier to Christianity, but I know people who deny that there is a God in at least some sense, while nonetheless affirming more Christian beliefs than many people who hold to the Creed.

Yes however... do these people who deny God say "Hey, I think Jesus was pretty much spot on in what he was saying, I dig that." or are they saying "Wow, Jesus was such a profound dude that I base my entire life on living what he taught."

I can envision the former, I'd say the latter is extremely rare.

But as an example of "a little off", I would consider erroneous beliefs about the nature of God to be, in general, harmless. Where shall I draw the line? Are people who don't know what the difference between hypostatic and other unions not real Christians? What if they can't agree on whether the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father alone, or both the Father and the Son?

As I mentioned earlier, heresy doesn't disqualify someone as Christian.

But if I were asked to guess which of these people was more likely a sheep, and which more likely a goat, you may rest assured that theism would not be the defining characteristic that spoke to me.

Well, if we go back to that parable however, we'll notice that the goats thought they were sheep, and were quite surprised to realize that they were not, indeed sheep, but were in fact, goats.

Jesus says that the sheep will recognize the shepherd, which means to me that both (belief(theism) and actions) would play a role in such a culling.

[godfry n. glad]

I wonder if a Christian can simply be defined as: a baptised individual who continues to view that baptism as an essential part of their eternal salvation.

What does "Jesus is Lord" mean?

As for me, I keep wondering who granted him a peerage? It's nonsensical.

Also, that term "eternal salvation" is a puzzler for me. What's "salvation"? Why is it necessary that it be "eternal"? Besides, a self-described christian has already denied this whole thing as unimportant....at least that's how I interpreted seebs' response.

Also... There's the question of what qualifies as an "appropriate baptism". Is it just sprinkling with "holy water"...or does it require full immersion, or something in-between? Is it done at infancy, or need it wait until adulthood?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Thirdly, I'd argue that this recognition is Triune in nature. If Jesus was mortal, obviously He is dead now, which means following Him would be pointless. You might admire Him, but following Him would be futile. Unless, of course, He is divine. If He is divine, that means that He is not dead, He is conscious of us, and He will return eventually (as He stated He would). Therefore, Christians must accept the Divinity of Christ.
I was never under the impression that modern Christians meant they were literally following Jesus, as in tagging along behind him. I always understood "following Jesus" to be an abbreviation of "following Jesus' teachings". So I don't think that's a convincing argument for necessitating divinity.
Sort of like Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha, though they do not expect him to return some day? I suppose I can see what you're saying here.
Is there some consensus among Christians as to what exactly Jesus has been doing in the 2000 years since he was here last?
According to the Nicene Creed, He is seated at the right hand of the Father.
So how do you go about following someone sitting at God's right hand in practice?

[TomJoe]

What does "Jesus is Lord" mean?


Since I didn't live 2,000 years ago, I can only guess as to what they meant. However, I believe it would equate to "Jesus is God", as evidenced by St. Thomas' comment "My Lord, and my God."

Also, that term "eternal salvation" is a puzzler for me. What's "salvation"?

Salvation means "deliverance from the power and effects of sin".

And before you ask, sin is defined as "transgression from the laws of God". (Blah blah blah, insert comments about objective morality and all that hoo-haa here. :P )

Why is it necessary that it be "eternal"?

Because Christians believe the consequence of sin was death. If you eliminate sin, you eliminate death.

Besides, a self-described christian has already denied this whole thing as unimportant....at least that's how I interpreted seebs' response.

So let me ask you... do you think that Christianity is really an empty term, where it means absolutely nothing? Or are we talking about a case of "I can't really define a Christian per se, but I know one when I see one." ?

Also... There's the question of what qualifies as an "appropriate baptism". Is it just sprinkling with "holy water"...or does it require full immersion, or something in-between? Is it done at infancy, or need it wait until adulthood?

Well, if we go back to the early Christians, and the Didache (written circa AD 90) we read that a triune formula (In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was used and that while full immersion was preferrable, sprinkling and pouring were also acceptable forms of baptism. As for infancy vs. adulthood, the Catholic Church (which we could use as an example of how the "majority" performs things) does not say one is preferrable over the other, and does both.

[seebs]

Well, if we go back to that parable however, we'll notice that the goats thought they were sheep, and were quite surprised to realize that they were not, indeed sheep, but were in fact, goats.

Jesus says that the sheep will recognize the shepherd, which means to me that both (belief(theism) and actions) would play a role in such a culling.

I interpreted it precisely the other way; belief didn't matter so much as faithfulness. In short... I think when the sheep recognize the shepherd, there's some amount of "Oh, that's what was going on" sometimes.

In my own experience, certainly, my realization of what was happening came some time after it started happening. I'd caught on that there was something going on, but it wasn't until it had been going on for some time that I started connecting it to notions of God, or Jesus.

[godfry n. glad]

What does "Jesus is Lord" mean?


Since I didn't live 2,000 years ago, I can only guess as to what they meant. However, I believe it would equate to "Jesus is God", as evidenced by St. Thomas' comment "My Lord, and my God."

That could also be evidence that they are, in fact, two separate entities, seeing that Thomas felt it necessary to delineate both for this Jesus. It sounds to me as though "Lord" is something different than "God".

Also, that term "eternal salvation" is a puzzler for me. What's "salvation"?

Salvation means "deliverance from the power and effects of sin".

And before you ask, sin is defined as "transgression from the laws of God". (Blah blah blah, insert comments about objective morality and all that hoo-haa here. :P )

It's beginning to sound circular. Since I doubt the existence of this god, I don't recognize any such thing as "sin" or "transgression of any arbitrary set of laws made up by bronze age power-mongers and ascribed to a non-existent but reputedly powerful badass in order to keep the hoi-polloi in line."

Why is it necessary that it be "eternal"?

Because Christians believe the consequence of sin was death. If you eliminate sin, you eliminate death.

Well, in my book, that's all bunkum. There is no sin, but there is death. Death is the consequence of living. No one escapes it. I can't even imagine why anyone would want to.

Besides, a self-described christian has already denied this whole thing as unimportant....at least that's how I interpreted seebs' response.

So let me ask you... do you think that Christianity is really an empty term, where it means absolutely nothing? Or are we talking about a case of "I can't really define a Christian per se, but I know one when I see one." ?

No... I thought I made it very clear. From my perspective, I have to ask everyone who calls themselves "a christian" what they mean by it. This is because from so many of my conversations, variant christians emphasize variant agendas and hold to variant dogmas. So much so from my view that they tend squabble amongst themselves about the very issues of what defines a "christian". As a non-christian and non-theist, it is all fairly amusing.

Also... There's the question of what qualifies as an "appropriate baptism". Is it just sprinkling with "holy water"...or does it require full immersion, or something in-between? Is it done at infancy, or need it wait until adulthood?

Well, if we go back to the early Christians, and the Didache (written circa AD 90) we read that a triune formula (In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was used and that while full immersion was preferrable, sprinkling and pouring were also acceptable forms of baptism. As for infancy vs. adulthood, the Catholic Church (which we could use as an example of how the "majority" performs things) does not say one is preferrable over the other, and does both.

Yet the catholic church saw fit to persecute those who even fell barely outside the strictures of dogma...the Anabaptists were persecuted with death for more than 200 years....by the catholic church with it's leader in Rome.

The visciousness which most sectaries treat other "christians" who they deem as "heretics" is probably the most enlightening thing about christian behavior.

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

godfry

[TomJoe]

That could also be evidence that they are, in fact, two separate entities, seeing that Thomas felt it necessary to delineate both for this Jesus. It sounds to me as though "Lord" is something different than "God".

But the Old Testament often refers to Yahweh as "Lord God". The phrase "Lord God" appears 352 times in the Old Testament. So I don't think Thomas is referring to two separate entities. Plus, he calls Jesus My Lord AND My God, which I view as Thomas recognizing both in Jesus.

If I call my father, my dad and my friend, that doesn't mean that my dad is two separate entities... it's that I view my father in multiple ways. There is still only one of my dad, and then... if I introduce him to someone as only my friend, that doesn't negate that he's still my dad.

:chin:

It's beginning to sound circular. Since I doubt the existence of this god, I don't recognize any such thing as "sin" or "transgression of any arbitrary set of laws made up by bronze age power-mongers and ascribed to a non-existent but reputedly powerful badass in order to keep the hoi-polloi in line."

Well, in my book, that's all bunkum. There is no sin, but there is death. Death is the consequence of living. No one escapes it. I can't even imagine why anyone would want to.

I know you think it's bunkum, and you don't believe it. Which is why you're not a Christian.

No... I thought I made it very clear. From my perspective, I have to ask everyone who calls themselves "a christian" what they mean by it. This is because from so many of my conversations, variant christians emphasize variant agendas and hold to variant dogmas. So much so from my view that they tend squabble amongst themselves about the very issues of what defines a "christian". As a non-christian and non-theist, it is all fairly amusing.

I think it's terribly pathetic... not you, but us. Squabbling. However, everyone has their own agenda in life, so even if you agree, chances are you won't agree on everything.

However, at the very root of a group, there lies a basic premise on which everyone can agree. For Christianity, that would have to be: 1. There is a divine entity out there. 2. Jesus Christ brought that entities message to us. Yes, I've changed my definition of "Christian" somewhat now... but I'm trying to explain that there has to be a unifying factor somewhere, once you cut through all the bullshit.

I mean, I could run around calling myself an atheist, but claim that there really is a God. Does that mean that atheism can't be defined, or that I'm just full of hooey?

Yet the catholic church saw fit to persecute those who even fell barely outside the strictures of dogma...the Anabaptists were persecuted with death for more than 200 years....by the catholic church with it's leader in Rome.

The visciousness which most sectaries treat other "christians" who they deem as "heretics" is probably the most enlightening thing about christian behavior.

Well, this has the potential to be a major derailment... but I'll touch on this briefly. When one has been "put in charge" of something, it is their responsibility to see that things run well. Combatting heresy has always been a perceived responsibility of the Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church views excommunication not as a punitive technique, but a medicinal one.

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

Do you really worry about that happening?

[viscousmemories]

If I call my father, my dad and my friend, that doesn't mean that my dad is two separate entities... it's that I view my father in multiple ways. There is still only one of my dad.
You're losing me on this part. You said you think 'Lord' and 'God' mean the same thing, because St. Thomas called Jesus "My Lord, and my God". But if you call your father your dad and your friend, you wouldn't conclude that 'dad' and 'friend' mean the same thing.

[TomJoe]

You're losing me on this part. You said you think 'Lord' and 'God' mean the same thing, because St. Thomas called Jesus "My Lord, and my God". But if you call your father your dad and your friend, you wouldn't conclude that 'dad' and 'friend' mean the same thing.

I think St. Thomas, in the Gospel of John, was making a very profound theological statement. In the Old Testament, God wasn't always simply referred to as "God". At times He was referred to as God, at times He was referred to as Lord, at others He was referred to as Lord God. Three titles, slightly different meanings, referring to the same personage.

I think Thomas is saying, at that point, in the Gospel of John that Jesus Christ was Lord God, (Yhwh Elohim). That it is found in John's Gospel, where John speaks of Jesus as "the Word" being God (John 1:1... the Word was God), is not IMO coincidence. John spends more time highlighting the divinity of Jesus Christ than any of the other Gospel writers.

[godfry n. glad]

That could also be evidence that they are, in fact, two separate entities, seeing that Thomas felt it necessary to delineate both for this Jesus. It sounds to me as though "Lord" is something different than "God".

But the Old Testament often refers to Yahweh as "Lord God". The phrase "Lord God" appears 352 times in the Old Testament. So I don't think Thomas is referring to two separate entities. Plus, he calls Jesus My Lord AND My God, which I view as Thomas recognizing both in Jesus.

If I call my father, my dad and my friend, that doesn't mean that my dad is two separate entities... it's that I view my father in multiple ways. There is still only one of my dad.

Yes, there is still only one of your dad, but you've found it necessary when referring to him to others to note that his is your "dad" AND your "friend". These are two different qualities about one male person. So...That being the case, what are the qualities which differentiate "Lord" and "God" that it is deemed necessary to use both terms?



It's beginning to sound circular. Since I doubt the existence of this god, I don't recognize any such thing as "sin" or "transgression of any arbitrary set of laws made up by bronze age power-mongers and ascribed to a non-existent but reputedly powerful badass in order to keep the hoi-polloi in line."

Well, in my book, that's all bunkum. There is no sin, but there is death. Death is the consequence of living. No one escapes it. I can't even imagine why anyone would want to.

I know you think it's bunkum, and you don't believe it. Which is why you're not a Christian.

See... That's just the thing. When theists deal with non-theists, they don't take into consideration that that person either does not use the language in the same manner and your terminology is nonsense, or...that person is a convert from christianity and denies them.

No... I thought I made it very clear. From my perspective, I have to ask everyone who calls themselves "a christian" what they mean by it. This is because from so many of my conversations, variant christians emphasize variant agendas and hold to variant dogmas. So much so from my view that they tend squabble amongst themselves about the very issues of what defines a "christian". As a non-christian and non-theist, it is all fairly amusing.

I think it's terribly pathetic... not you, but us. Squabbling. However, everyone has their own agenda in life, so even if you agree, chances are you won't agree on everything.

However, at the very root of a group, there lies a basic premise on which everyone can agree. For Christianity, that would have to be: 1. There is a divine entity out there. 2. Jesus Christ brought that entities message to us. Yes, I've changed my definition of "Christian" somewhat now... but I'm trying to explain that there has to be a unifying factor somewhere, once you cut through all the bullshit.

Well, if it's any consolation, I tend to agree that there is a core teaching that all share...but there is an awful lot of bullshit that goes into each sectary denying that the other has what it takes.

I mean, I could run around calling myself an atheist, but claim that there really is a God. Does that mean that atheism can't be defined, or that I'm just full of hooey?

Well...my money's on the latter. But then, by doing so in the christian equivalent, you're stepping into the "no true Scotsman" morass. Once you've decided that some christian is just full of hooey, you have to explain why. Then you'll run into all the artificial constructs set up to clearly demark those dispersing hooey.

Yet the catholic church saw fit to persecute those who even fell barely outside the strictures of dogma...the Anabaptists were persecuted with death for more than 200 years....by the catholic church with it's leader in Rome.

The visciousness which most sectaries treat other "christians" who they deem as "heretics" is probably the most enlightening thing about christian behavior.

Well, this has the potential to be a major derailment... but I'll touch on this briefly. When one has been "put in charge" of something, it is their responsibility to see that things run well. Combatting heresy has always been a perceived responsibility of the Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church views excommunication not as a punitive technique, but a medicinal one.

The ol' excision of an institutional pathogen, eh?

Here's a question... Since the Catholic Church selected the dogma which is important to the continuation of the church and adjudges those who fail to meet that dogma with separation and anaethema, all via the fallible judgement of humans, how do you know that the dogma so accepted is correct?

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

Do you really worry about that happening?

I consider it possible, but highly improbable. At this time, there is a segment of the American electorate that seems to be saying they'd prefer to see their religious dogma become part and parcel of national policy. I think this dangerous and a harbinger of potentially worse things to come. The attorney general of the previous Bushette administration, the flaming idiot that the good people of Missouri decided that a dead man was better than he as their senator...Mr. Ashcroft...used the power of the highest offices of the land in an attempt to impose his morality upon the people of my state. This administration has funnelled public funds to private religious groups...I think that is a blatant violation of the First Amendement. It's a beginning. If not met with opposition and made clear that our national constitution frowns on such, yes...we could be looking at heresy hunts, book burnings and pogroms. Mr. Bush, Senior, has already made a public statement as the President of the United States that he thought atheists should not be allowed as American citizens.

godfry

[seebs]

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

Do you really worry about that happening?

I do.

People like dittomonkey have a lot more power than they used to. Look at it this way... Rapture Ready would come for me before they'd come for you. :)

[godfry n. glad]

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

Do you really worry about that happening?

I do.

People like dittomonkey have a lot more power than they used to. Look at it this way... Rapture Ready would come for me before they'd come for you. :)

:yup:

From what I can tell, it seems that TomJoe is merely a follower of the Whore of Babylon, while seebs is an out and out screaming heretic...and one who's been hanging out with the heathens, and thus is probably a tool of the Antichrist. Invented boogie men for the invented end times.

[TomJoe]

I'd like to keep seebs and his lot around, just as the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft. He and his lot will be persecuted, harried and suppressed by any rouge christian sectary that might arise and potentially threaten the separation of state and church, and pose a real risk of the imposition of a theocracy and the loss of civil rights in my nation.

Do you really worry about that happening?

I do.

People like dittomonkey have a lot more power than they used to. Look at it this way... Rapture Ready would come for me before they'd come for you. :)

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

[Ms.Babylon]

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

Me too! :innocent:

[seebs]

From what I can tell, it seems that TomJoe is merely a follower of the Whore of Babylon, while seebs is an out and out screaming heretic...and one who's been hanging out with the heathens, and thus is probably a tool of the Antichrist. Invented boogie men for the invented end times.

One thing I find fascinating is that I get along better with Catholics than Protestants, for the most part.

I am unpopular with some Christians because they have God all figured out, and I don't fit into that. I'm the guy who came out of the wilderness, still licking wild honey from his hands. They don't know what to do with me. I've never learned the rotes and words they use to keep the Spirit tame and make it guide them only in socially acceptable ways. I say things that make them uncomfortable. I ask questions they don't want to answer.

I think the reason I get along better with Catholics is that they are able to accept transubstantation; that I can have the accidents of a heathen, but the substance of the Body of Christ.

[seebs]

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

You think they'd let me register to begin with? Hah! Not even close.

[godfry n. glad]

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

You think they'd let me register to begin with? Hah! Not even close.


They've actively barred you from participation? No registration? At all?

Wow...

How'd they do that?

[seebs]

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

You think they'd let me register to begin with? Hah! Not even close.


They've actively barred you from participation? No registration? At all?

Wow...

How'd they do that?

My registration was inexplicably never approved. Huh!

[Ms.Babylon]

How many times were you banned at RR?

Me? Twice.

:P

You think they'd let me register to begin with? Hah! Not even close.


They've actively barred you from participation? No registration? At all?

Wow...

How'd they do that?

My registration was inexplicably never approved. Huh!

If you were a contributor to Fundies Say the Darndest Things (and I know you were), you're automatically banned.

(at least that's my educated guess from discussing it with different people)
Try registering under a different name and see what happens.

[seebs]

Well, there's another problem; if I tried to be active there, something would burst into flame.

[viscousmemories]

Well, there's another problem; if I tried to be active there, something would burst into flame.
Youch. I hope you don't mean that something.

[livius drusus]

In accordance with my plea agreement with the Right Honorable godfry n. glad, I hereby assign this thread:

:goldstar: :goldstar: :goldstar: :goldstar: :goldstar:

Great thread, y'all, really. Thank you.

[Mustaphile]

I think of myself as a liberal christian because I'm liberated from orthodox interpretation, orthodox understanding and orthodox practice. My liberal label is my badge of freedom. It's a rallying point for all those seeking release from bondage. ;)

Are you liberated from the Nicene Creed?

godfry

Yes. If my beliefs incidently line up with the Nicene Creed, thats not bondage. That's coincidence.

Understood. It's congruence.

The Nicene Creed includes several articles of faith...things believed...as I understand it, most organized christians think it necessary to believe all the articles of faith included in one of the creeds in order to "be a christian".

My question would then be, what is it that you use as a reason for calling yourself a christian? Is there an article of belief that you hold that qualifies you?

godfry


Sorry for the delay in the reply. :)

I consider it an appropriate label to communicate many things in one word. Anyone interested in finding the person behind the label can enquire further. To enumerate the the pros and cons of using the label might be a little bit more work than I would want to put into this post. The revealing of that label to others comes in a variety of contexts and I handle each one differently. The most simple reason would be it's a beginning point for discusssion about my beliefs with others.

For someone who only seeks to know me by that label, they will always have their pre-conceptions and nothing I say or do will convince them otherwise. For someone who seeks to know the person behind the label, there is opportunity for me to address pre-conceptions and either dispel or validate them, as they apply to me. Thusly the individual behind the label is revealed. :)