Thread: Purgatory: What makes for a Christian? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000772
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Strange question, but I know that, across the boards, there are people with views and ideas that they draw from their Christianity but which are fundamentally opposed to each other. I reckon there are few if any shipmates with whom I couldn't find a point of significant difference.
And in terms of action, there are also wide ( and incompatible ) variations - how we should behave, what the actions of a "Christian" would be.
All of which means that trying to get a definition of what a Christian is in terms of belief or action seems impossible. So how can we do it? Is it possible at all?
[ 16. December 2010, 12:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
There's quite a few who would say that, since you asked that question, you are clearly not A Real Christian. After all, you have uncertainty and that is not allowed.
I tend to the other end of the spectrum. We don't really know. All we can do is try to express an approximation and then try to live to the best of our ability as indicated by that approximation.
And, since we don't really know, we can't be too dismissive of what someone else thinks or does, since, if he is sincere, he carries some element of The Truth.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...All of which means that trying to get a definition of what a Christian is in terms of belief or action seems impossible. So how can we do it? Is it possible at all?
That's an easy one:
A Christian is one who can honestly state:
quote:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
Sharkshooter, who gets to define exactly what the words and phrases in the creed mean?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
The Church Fathers did that, IF, nearly two millennia ago.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
The Church Fathers did that, IF, nearly two millennia ago.
True, but the creed they defined wasn't the one quoted by sharkshooter. The Nicene, not the Apostles', Creed is one of the defining marks of the Christian, and even then we can't make up our minds on it (filioque, anyone?).
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
SS: but you KNOW that prewritten creeds and prayers are not allowed. Then there's that business about "catholic" and "saints"
Say it from your heart in "weejus" form.
Are you Born Again?
More sewriously, is a Christian known by his words or by his works?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
The Church Fathers did that, IF, nearly two millennia ago.
True, but the creed they defined wasn't the one quoted by sharkshooter. The Nicene, not the Apostles', Creed is one of the defining marks of the Christian, and even then we can't make up our minds on it (filioque, anyone?).
I don't have a problem with the Nicene creed either, but it seems a bit wordy for me. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So, how about, either one or the other, either with or without the filioque?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
A Christian is someone who self-identifies as such, and who seeks to follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as I'm concerned, everything else is just details. Including the definitions of words in that paragraph.
But then, I don't believe that what you believe matters half as much as how that belief inspires you to live your life.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Strange question, but I know that, across the boards, there are people with views and ideas that they draw from their Christianity but which are fundamentally opposed to each other. I reckon there are few if any shipmates with whom I couldn't find a point of significant difference.
And in terms of action, there are also wide ( and incompatible ) variations - how we should behave, what the actions of a "Christian" would be.
All of which means that trying to get a definition of what a Christian is in terms of belief or action seems impossible. So how can we do it? Is it possible at all?
The love of God through Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit impressed upon the soul and expressed in the life.
And while you can certainly test the fruits of a person, only they know what is going on internally. So in a sense, you can't tell.
Guess who's been spending too much quality time with Mr. Wesley lately?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I'm not sure the attempt to corner the "Christian" brand is worth anything.
Exactly the same arguments go on about what is a socialist, or a true conservative. Even vegetarian is a disputed term.
The attempt to make Christain = Saved Person or Good Person just devalues language as CS Lewis pointed out, when he drew the comparison with Gentlemen which started as an eimpirical statement but morphed into a value statement or opinion. It's pointless.
The only real issue are where it interacts with the law. For example JW's attempts to get exemption from military service as "Christian" ministers.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm not sure the attempt to corner the "Christian" brand is worth anything.
It's worth something when someone brings up the crusades, or a more recent spat of ethnic cleansing, and you're trying to explain how killing a zillion people doesn't exactly look like following Christ, and can't because to try to define "Christianity" is apparently only the business of scary fundamentalists.
Again, maybe I've been spending too much time with John Wesley lately, but I'm beginning to think limp-wristed "tolerance" isn't a Christian virtue. Should we jettison the notion of discipleship as well because someone might get offended?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm all in favour of a person's faith showing itself in how they lead their life. Really I am. Whoop-de-doo. Put out more flags. All that.
But when it becomes a defining characteristic of the faith, I begin to worry. What about people who, because of extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment, can't be do-ers of the faith? Are they to be consigned to the outer darkness, as well as the inner darkness many already experience?
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
A response to Horseman Bree: A person's words may indicate that he or she aspires to be a Christian. The person's actions may indicate that success has not yet been achieved. (This is most of us.) Is a specific individual a Christian? In general, only God knows for sure.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
limp-wristed "tolerance"
Somehow I suspect that may be an indivisible phrase in your vocabulary.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
limp-wristed "tolerance"
Somehow I suspect that may be an indivisible phrase in your vocabulary.
No, it isn't, actually. It's just an unhealthy extreme of tolerance. Hence the scare quotes.
[ 19. July 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm all in favour of a person's faith showing itself in how they lead their life. Really I am. Whoop-de-doo. Put out more flags. All that.
But when it becomes a defining characteristic of the faith, I begin to worry. What about people who, because of extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment, can't be do-ers of the faith? Are they to be consigned to the outer darkness, as well as the inner darkness many already experience?
a) Prayer and worship are outworkings of faith. All can participate in those things, no matter what their level of impairment.
b) We shouldn't assume an inner darkness exists for many with extreme impairment. On the contrary, when studies have been done, even those with extreme impairment of IQ, communication or otherwise have shown a rich and beautiful inner life and a deep spirituality. To the astonishment of the researchers. Our expectation that great difference = horrible suffering is a society one, not often a reality. Though of course some people (impaired or otherwise) really do suffer.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
I cling to my sig.! I don't agree with CSL on all points, but that's a good one. There is such a thing as too much certainty, especially when applied to the infinite and essentially unknowable. How can we have God, and therefore Christianity, taped, tied down and absolutely covered? He and it are bigger than we are, and some (a good deal of) uncertainty and doubt are IMHO, appropriate.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm all in favour of a person's faith showing itself in how they lead their life. Really I am. Whoop-de-doo. Put out more flags. All that.
But when it becomes a defining characteristic of the faith, I begin to worry. What about people who, because of extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment, can't be do-ers of the faith? Are they to be consigned to the outer darkness, as well as the inner darkness many already experience?
Are you saying that the Crusades were merely the result of "extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment." Isn't that a bit harsh to those who are so impaired?
Practically, I think it's perfectly reasonable, even loving, to consider where people are coming from and adjust accordingly. That's not the same thing as saying that Christianity means "anything goes and has God's sanction as long as you 'claim the name.'"
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Are you saying that the Crusades were merely the result of "extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment." Isn't that a bit harsh to those who are so impaired?
How in the name of everything that has a bottom do you get that from what I said? I was talking about those who are impaired from doing anything very much. I wouldn't have thought that believing that Muslims should be slaughtered wholesale really counts as any kind of impairment, unless medical science has taken a weird sideways step and nobody sent me the memo.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The problem with the creed as a defining factor is that, even within one church, there will be varying understandings of the meanings of the words. So being able to honestly state it, while important, is not definitive. All it really does ( and all it was intended to do ) is rule out some doctrines as non-Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A Christian is someone who self-identifies as such, and who seeks to follow the teachings of Christ.[\QB][\QUOTE]
So there is no defining feature of a Christin, other than the fact that someone chooses to call themselves that? "Seeking to follow the teachings of Christ" is critical, but what does that mean? The Nazis could have claimed they were doing that.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QB]But then, I don't believe that what you believe matters half as much as how that belief inspires you to live your life.
Which brings us back to the works question.
If the defining features are "faith" - in the sense of belief however expressed - then it becomes too nebulous to mean anything, and it cannot challenge, because the meaning and understanding are defined by ourselves.
If the defining features are "works" - even if works inspired by faith - then there are people who would not consider themselves Christian, whose personal belief inspires them to good works too.
And one Christians belief may put them as a peace protested, being confronted by another Christian whose faith has led them to the police force. We can find such difference in our country, but if we look internationally, there are peoples whose indigenous expression of their faith may be even more challenging.
And yet if it is not clarified, then surely it means nothing? For me to say I am a Christian is meaningless if that is purely self-defined. To say I am a Green Party member means something, to say I am an Archer means something - in the first case it is an expression of my beliefs, and in the second it is something I do practically that defines me as such. But being a Christian - what does that mean?
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
I would argue that a Christian is a person for whome Christ is someone to emulate.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
...Virgin Mary...
Is that 'virgin' as the Isaiah prophecy said in Hebrew (young woman)? Or is it the 'virgin' that the Greek translation equates to 'someone who hasn't had sex'? Could be important.
I for a long time held the opinion that a Christian was someone who could say the creed without crossing their fingers. Then I started doing theology properly (I stopped doing it properly a while ago) and realised that the creed was the beginning of the debate rather than the end. Just like saying 'it says in the bible...' is never the end of a debate either.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Are you saying that the Crusades were merely the result of "extreme physical, mental or emotional impairment." Isn't that a bit harsh to those who are so impaired?
How in the name of everything that has a bottom do you get that from what I said? I was talking about those who are impaired from doing anything very much. I wouldn't have thought that believing that Muslims should be slaughtered wholesale really counts as any kind of impairment, unless medical science has taken a weird sideways step and nobody sent me the memo.
As I said, if you're dealing with a clear case of impairment, then as a Christian you see what they can do instead of saying "You're not good enough!"
I just don't see how that refutes my argument that there is an external component to Christianity. External standards are always adjustable in extreme situations, but there's still a norm.
It starts from an inward state of grace, and extends into the life insofar as the person is able to express that. IME, even severely disabled people are capable of expressing themselves. Why treat them like they're incapacitated from any sort of Christian work?
Everyone is capable of something while they yet live. To say otherwise is to dehumanize the disabled.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Everyone is capable of something while they yet live. To say otherwise is to dehumanize the disabled.
Coma? Persistent vegetative state?
Seriously. Because if you're going to make the stuff that you do essential and necessary to being called a Christian, then you have to account for those people too.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A Christian is someone who self-identifies as such, and who seeks to follow the teachings of Christ.
So there is no defining feature of a Christin, other than the fact that someone chooses to call themselves that? "Seeking to follow the teachings of Christ" is critical, but what does that mean? The Nazis could have claimed they were doing that.
I am deliberately drawing the definition as wide as possible in order to avoid excluding anyone who should not be excluded. My policy is, and has always been, that I would rather answer to God for including someone who should have been kept out than for excluding someone who should have been welcomed in.
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But then, I don't believe that what you believe matters half as much as how that belief inspires you to live your life.
Which brings us back to the works question.
If the defining features are "faith" - in the sense of belief however expressed - then it becomes too nebulous to mean anything, and it cannot challenge, because the meaning and understanding are defined by ourselves.
Apparently you think religion must challenge the believer. Why is that?
quote:
If the defining features are "works" - even if works inspired by faith - then there are people who would not consider themselves Christian, whose personal belief inspires them to good works too.
And good for them . But I'm not going to insist that someone is Christian if they say they're not any more than I'm going to insist they aren't even if they say they are.
quote:
And one Christians belief may put them as a peace protested, being confronted by another Christian whose faith has led them to the police force. We can find such difference in our country, but if we look internationally, there are peoples whose indigenous expression of their faith may be even more challenging.
Absolutely! I don't see that as a problem - everyone has the right to interpret the faith ther own way.
quote:
And yet if it is not clarified, then surely it means nothing? For me to say I am a Christian is meaningless if that is purely self-defined. To say I am a Green Party member means something, to say I am an Archer means something - in the first case it is an expression of my beliefs, and in the second it is something I do practically that defines me as such. But being a Christian - what does that mean?
It means you follow Christ. Why does it need to mean more?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
God? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
No, that's too simple for smart alecs. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Everyone is capable of something while they yet live. To say otherwise is to dehumanize the disabled.
Coma? Persistent vegetative state?
Seriously. Because if you're going to make the stuff that you do essential and necessary to being called a Christian, then you have to account for those people too.
I think those qualify as extreme and exceptional cases where allowances can be made. I think for most people you don't have to go that far.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
And just to add, it is originally an inward thing, which is why I said on a certain level you can't tell who is or who isn't. If a person had a tragic accident or was obviously mentally ill, then I'd have to take that into consideration as something external to who the person actually was (though in some cases this does get tricky.) I would never say that God couldn't act on someone if they were generally incapacitated.
It's just that for people who are able to claim that they are Christian vocally with some understanding, there should be some expectation that there should be "fruits." If not, what are they actually following?
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
My initial thought is to say that a Christian is someone who has been baptized. Holes could be poked in this definition, but it's my starting point.
Do we get a different take on the question if we consider "how is the word Christian used?" instead of "how do I define Christian?"
This thread gives examples of the range of meanings given to the word. (I'm reading Joel Hoffmann's And God Said on Biblical translation and he has a lot to say about how the meaning(s) of a word are determined from the contexts in which it is used.)
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
My initial thought is to say that a Christian is someone who has been baptized. Holes could be poked in this definition, but it's my starting point.
Stalin was baptised. The Salvation Army are not.
You can't define a faith by something that is done to you. You can define it by either a core belief or a core action that you do.
I need to go to work now and can't access the ship their, but have a couple of thoughts on this subject I want to post when I come back.
I know that sounds like I'm really up myself and you lot probably don't give a monkeys about my thoughts on the subject, but I wanted to put a 'place holder' in the thread I can come back to this evening.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
A Christian is someone who believes they are a Christian - no one else is to judge otherwise.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Everyone is capable of something while they yet live. To say otherwise is to dehumanize the disabled.
Coma? Persistent vegetative state?
Seriously. Because if you're going to make the stuff that you do essential and necessary to being called a Christian, then you have to account for those people too.
I think those qualify as extreme and exceptional cases where allowances can be made. I think for most people you don't have to go that far.
I hate exceptions to rules. They give me an irritating niggly feeling at the back of my head. But the main thing now then is, who gets to make the excpetions and allowances?
Which kind of brings us back to what Sir Pellinore, Boogie et al said.
(Boogie, you're quite right. In the hospital where I work, when people self-define as Christian, nobody - least of all the chaplain - has the right to go and tell them they're not. And I think that's a very useful bottom line.)
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A Christian is someone who believes they are a Christian - no one else is to judge otherwise.
If I believe I am a horse, no one else is to judge.
The only difference between your comment and mine is that there is a physical difference that can be seen to prove I am not a horse - just delusional.
On the other hand, if I were to say I am a six foot 2 blond 25 year-old Adonis, all but 3 or 4 people on the boards would not have evidence to prove otherwise. This is the comparison with your comment.
So, where am I going with this? Someone who knows a person well, will "know" whether they are a Christian, in the sense that "by their fruits you shall know them".
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don't agree - only God knows our real attitudes and intentions. I have known some very convincing people who turned out to be Sociopaths.
If people are pretending to be Christian that is also a matter only for themselves to judge.
Nope, I stick by what I said - only the person who claims it and God really know a person's heart.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
Why do you think I used scare quotes around the word know? Because, one who doesn't live a live which demonstrates Christlikeness yet calls himself a Christian will raise doubts in those around him.
Personally, I will not call someone a non-Christian if they confess to be a Christian, but I will decide for myself (and keep it to myself unless asked) whether their beliefs and actions are indicative of Christian beliefs and actions.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, where am I going with this? Someone who knows a person well, will "know" whether they are a Christian, in the sense that "by their fruits you shall know them".
This quotation from Matthew 7 is often brought out at times like this. Unfortunately it's often used quite out of context - Jesus was specifically talking about people who claim to be prophets, not people who claim to be Christians. There may well be arguments about the "fruit" that faith bears in one's life, but if there are such arguments, this isn't one of them.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I said myself that it is ultimately God's call not mine. I just think that there are certain responsibilities and obligations that go along with that.
If someone drinks themself stupid and beats their spouse every night, and then calls themself "Christian"...and this is their witness to Christ...
I suppose in that case at least I'd have some grounds to call them on it.
And yeah, I think it's obvious that you don't walk up to someone who's lying on a hospital bed and tell them they're damned. It's common sense that pastoral issues trump theological issues. And yes, every rule is going to have exceptions for extreme circumstances (and I think a coma counts as an extreme circumstance.) That doesn't bother me much.
But in the calm logic of Purgatory, I think there are certain responsibilities that go along with the name, and don't want to see that diluted to the point where Christianity is an objectively meaningless word.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, where am I going with this? Someone who knows a person well, will "know" whether they are a Christian, in the sense that "by their fruits you shall know them".
This quotation from Matthew 7 is often brought out at times like this. Unfortunately it's often used quite out of context - Jesus was specifically talking about people who claim to be prophets, not people who claim to be Christians. There may well be arguments about the "fruit" that faith bears in one's life, but if there are such arguments, this isn't one of them.
Good call, though looking it up, I see in the very next passage: quote:
21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” 23Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”
Claiming Jesus as one's "Lord" doesn't seem to be sufficient. Doing the will of the Father is necessary.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
I think Jesus' parables of the Net and the Wheat and Tares address this. We in the church really don't know who is an authentic Christian and who is not. My personal observation --- based on Jesus' principle that "[one] knows them by their fruits" --- is that there are some church people who are probably not Christians, and there are some outside the Church who clearly seem to be.
It's not up for us to make the judgment. It's left for God to make. Isn't that the point of the two parables?
If one who professes to be a Christian lives a scandalous life, there is just cause for church discipline. If one who professes to be a Christian espouses a theology that is antithetical to orthodox belief, I think that's a bit murkier --- does being a Christian require that that one has to have all his/her doctrine straight? Does being an Arian or an adoptionist, for example, automatically presuppose that one isn't a Christian --- even if he or she displays the fruits of the Spirit?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
If you have faith, won't it affect how you live?
It's not about works as in setting up a soup kitchen, it's works as in appreciation for God and compassion for others. That will naturally show in ways within your own interests, abilities, and resources.
Some might be motivated by that appreciation and compassion to set up a soup kitchen, and some might set up a soup kitchen for entirely other reasons, and some might be motivated to pray or write a book instead of setting up a soup kitchen.
But can you have appreciation for God and compassion for others and be a back-stabber, spread vicious gossip, refuse to forgive, be constantly jealous, vengeful about any wrongs done to you, +have a sour disposition daily?
Any of us can have a bad mood or a selfish or thoughtless moment, but the woman who is known as
"that bitter woman" is showing persistent ungodly fruit no matter what else is going on in her life - nursing home resident or nursing home manager, occasional choir member or music director.
It's not about how much you can do compared with a more able bodied person - even between two able bodied people there are differences of talent and opportunity - it's about who you are becoming, and that shows in how you daily treat people and God. (But avoid superficial tests - "he didn't say grace before eating, he's not a Christian"?)
The utterly uncommunicative aren't doing anything visible in relating to God or others, so you have no way to know what is their attitude towards God or people. But so what? Why do we need to label someone in a coma "Christian" or "non-C"? Surely we are not going to treat them less compassionately because of one or the other label?
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
'place holder'
A chap called Ninian Smart said that religion (let alone Christianity couldn’t really be defined without excluding some that should be included and including some that shouldn’t. Any definition of religion has to be legally watertight because religions can claim tax exemption and no one want s a knitting circle claiming to be a religion. So, by extension, any definition of Christianity has to be equally watertight.
Smart eventually said that religions contain the seven following elements:
1. Doctrinal
2. Mythological
3. Ethical
4. Ritual
5. Experiential
6. Institutional
7. Material (added in his 1998 text)
Whilst it is clear that Christianity ticks all those boxes, they can be amended to apply to only Christianity.
1. The doctrines of the church
2. The biblical myths
3. the explicitly Christian ethics as represented in the bible and tradition
4. Christian rituals as practiced by the church
5. the experiences of actually doing something explicitly Christian; pray, go to church etc.
6. church institution
7. the material aspects of Christianity, sacraments, etc.
If this is right then a Christian is someone who engages with these elements, just like a religious person is someone who engages with Smart’s original list.
It also leaves room for dialogue as each of these elements are vague and can be internally debated, but must be present for an internal debate. Someone outside of these elements can engage of course, but as an outsider.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I would agree that a real answer is not for us to judge - that is not the point. The point is to try and understand what it might mean to be a Christian, what features may make this a reasonable thing for a person to claim. Just like my claim to be a horse can be shown to not be true ( or maybe it is true ), what sort of questions or expectations would justify this claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But in the calm logic of Purgatory, I think there are certain responsibilities that go along with the name, and don't want to see that diluted to the point where Christianity is an objectively meaningless word.
This is important - if the word means whatever people want it to ( i.e. if anyone can make a claim to be a Christian without any demonstrable issues ) then it means nothing. If everyone is a Christian then no-one is.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If you have faith, won't it affect how you live? [/QUOTE]
Yes. And so there should be some sense of being able to see that. Surely?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A Christian is someone who believes they are a Christian - no one else is to judge otherwise.
My understanding is otherwise...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
From my rather fading memory (No, I wasn't there at the time ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) the only belief the Early Christians had to subscribe to was the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord. Everything else - the Rite of Initiation - followed.
I have no problem with this. I think the Orthodox Church would still essentially be following in this context.
We in the West have been getting our nappies into knots about Confessions of Faith - some extremely legalistic like the Westminster Confession - and often reactions against the increasingly centralized power and worldly misdeeds of the Vatican.
Christianity is not, repeat not, the fiefdom of 'brilliant' theologians or clergy or 'professional church members' - who can all be right off course and right pains in the ass - but of all the faithful. This is something very evident in countries like Greece where the average citizen actually knows Church History and Essential Belief and can't be bamboozled by people from GTS or weird televangelists.
Christianity is not a WASP middle class possession.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
More sewriously, is a Christian known by his words or by his works?
Thought he was known by his bumper stickers...
Have been contemplating a thread on a more general question of a similar nature.
In order for a definition to have meaning, it must have some rigidity. Even Marvin's rather open standard, is a standard.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
If we use existing threads such as Non-Christians on the Ship? and
Former Christians, ever miss anything? as a mine for how people use not-Christian (thereby getting a mirror image of Christian), it seems to me that people usually cease to identify as Christian when they cease identifying with the beliefs. Which might mean a definition of the word "Christian" based on usage would focus on beliefs.
For those of you who believe Christian is defined by actions in the world, how do you distinguish between people doing those actions who are Christian, and those doing those same actions whoe are not Christian? (If the answer is, "by what they believe", then that would be further evidence that belief is part of the common understanding about "Christian" in our culture.)
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
For those who accept the definition of Christian as "anyone who says they're a Christian", it seems to me that there is more to that.
If someone says they're a Christian, surely there is some range of characteristics (whether beliefs or actions or allegiance) that you expect them to fall within. Maybe not checking all boxes, but surely not checking none of them. For example, if Osama Bin Laden released a tape saying "I am a Christian" you would presumably have some things you would expect him to have experienced or come to believe or come to act like that would have caused that claim. What would those be? And if he said, "nope, I haven't changed at all from last week" surely you might then be sceptical of his claim to be a Christian?
I'm not saying there's one particular thing that everyone you accept as Christian who calls themself Christian meets, but it seems to me there's a smorgasbord of traits of which you would expect them to have something for their claim to make any sense.
(In this and the previous post, I'm not adhering to my "Christian = baptized" proposed starting point. I'm exploring the implications of the various definitions, keeping (I hope) an open mind.)
[ 20. July 2010, 19:13: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
A short visit to the OED turns up two definitions (among others) for the noun Christian:
quote:
1.a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.
quote:
2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety.
(They are paralleled by similar definitions for the adjective, one about beliefs and one about actions.)
This seems to fit what we have seen on this thread: some people use Christian to mean belief; some people use it to mean actions.
The belief definition leads one to seek out the definition of Christianity. The one that seems most apposite is:
quote:
2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.
This doesn't answer specifics about the beliefs and/or actions, but I think that's exactly the point of a definition (to define in general, leaving room for observed variations). I think this ties in to what Schroedinger's cat observed in the OP, that people who call themselves Christians believe very different things. Do the OED definitions help to provide a definition that accomodates that range of belief and actions?
[ 20. July 2010, 19:36: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
If we use existing threads such as Non-Christians on the Ship? and
Former Christians, ever miss anything? as a mine for how people use not-Christian (thereby getting a mirror image of Christian), it seems to me that people usually cease to identify as Christian when they cease identifying with the beliefs. Which might mean a definition of the word "Christian" based on usage would focus on beliefs.
For those of you who believe Christian is defined by actions in the world, how do you distinguish between people doing those actions who are Christian, and those doing those same actions whoe are not Christian? (If the answer is, "by what they believe", then that would be further evidence that belief is part of the common understanding about "Christian" in our culture.)
To the former, there have recently been entire threads about whether CHristianity was defined by cognitive frameworks or whether it's a relational state of being (or some blend of the two.) So to get there, you have to work out what you mean by "beliefs," and which of these or what manner of this is necessary?
John Wesley had all kinds of words for these "orthodox devils" who knew their doctrine forward and backward and did nothing beyond that.
To the latter, I think everyone more less accepts that's impossible. Nobody can know what's going on in someone's soul from the outside.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I don't mean how do you personally tell about someone else. I mean, what are the theoretical movements in their soul (that if you did know, would tell you). Or, more easily, (which is what I meant originally) what is the internal state that distinguishes between Christians and people who don't profess to be Christians and indeed profess another religion who are nevertheless doing the actions that you feel Christians should do.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
what is the internal state that distinguishes between Christians and people who don't profess to be Christians and indeed profess another religion who are nevertheless doing the actions that you feel Christians should do.
I guess different Christians come to different conclusions as to whether Stalin (someone said he was baptized) is in heaven and Ghandi not.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
That's a non sequitur, Belle Ringer. We're not discussing who goes to heaven and why; we're discussing what we use as a definition of "a Christian" here on earth.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't mean how do you personally tell about someone else. I mean, what are the theoretical movements in their soul (that if you did know, would tell you). Or, more easily, (which is what I meant originally) what is the internal state that distinguishes between Christians and people who don't profess to be Christians and indeed profess another religion who are nevertheless doing the actions that you feel Christians should do.
I think one fairly general answer (that certainly demands further analysis) is the love of God shown in Jesus Christ. On another level, why do they do what they do? What are the motivations to charity in other traditions?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
With a word like this you'll have to define not only what it means dictionary style, but in what contexts and out of whose mouth. Sort of like "He is not a gentleman," which means very different things in the mouth of Chaucer and my auntie. But "Christian" is about a thousand times more slippery.
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge. I suppose that would be places like the local hospital etc. In other contexts God alone can do the definition, because it's basically something only he has the discernment for.
Since we spend most of life somewhere between these two extremes, I think we basically use rules of thumb to make practical judgments (which might be faulty). So if someone shoots up his local congregation and stands there with a smoking gun in hand saying "I'm a Christian," I'm going to pull out rule-of-thumb X, the one that says "Christians can be expected to show at least a faint resemblance to Christlike behavior," and I'm going to disbelieve him.
On the other hand, if I hear a charming, friendly person opining at great length and on multiple occasions that Jesus is no more than a great moral teacher, and that we really don't need to believe all that nonsense about his deity, the resurrection, etc, well, I'll use a different rule of thumb--the one that says "Christians can be expected to believe at least the broad outlines of the major doctrines found in the New Testament." (And if I'm fool enough or concerned enough to say anything, she'll likely lose her temper with me--because that rule of thumb is one she refuses to acknowledge.)
Autenreith Road, you were asking about recognition and inward states and all--sometimes I think of it as similar to the way one part of the body recognizes another part as still being "self." It's not wholly a logical process, more a case of "something's wrong (right) here, and I don't know what, but I can smell it." The DNA is just wrong (right) enough to trigger a reaction in another member of Christ's body.
To be sure, this is not a very safe way to function. The human body makes mistakes all the time, sometimes in the form of auto-immune diseases, and sometimes when it accepts something it ought to reject. But it's probably the best we're going to do right now.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge.
I'm having trouble thinking of any context where it would make sense to me not to let people self-define as Christian. I understand about having our own opinions about other Christians, but when would it make sense or be a good idea to challenge anyone who self-identifies as such?
And I don't know if those teeth you refer to are someone else's or your own, but the idea of that kind of reaction is perplexing to me. Why would someone else's concept of themselves be a matter that grates so much? I realize that your situation is completely different than mine, and that you have to deal with people in ways that I never have to, but my imagination is failing to help me understand. Perhaps when you speak of rejection, you refer to situations where you find that rejecting someone as mistakenly (or delusionally) Christian is necessary and appropriate?
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
I recently read a book by Dan Clark (I'm a Christian, aren't I), in which he said there were five elements:
Believing (in a personal God that saves from sin)
Belonging to a church community
Behaving (I think in a Chrst-like manner)
Baptism (connected with personal conviction)
Being born again
I thought it was quite a good list, although plenty can be said about what they actually mean. I think its right to say that being a Christian is a mixture of inward belief and outward signs. I think the list fits into the features identified by Ninian Thingy above.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A Christian is someone who believes they are a Christian - no one else is to judge otherwise.
My understanding is otherwise...
So you define "Christian" as "one who will enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
Interesting.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
I recently read a book by Dan Clark (I'm a Christian, aren't I), in which he said there were five elements:
Believing (in a personal God that saves from sin)
Belonging to a church community
Behaving (I think in a Chrst-like manner)
Baptism (connected with personal conviction)
Being born again
....
How, then, do you deal with those who don't have all five elements? For example, the one who feeds the poor, but does not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Or, the one who belongs to a church, who fails to follow several of the Christian teachings on behaviour (loving your neighbour, not coveting, being faithful to your spouse, following the 10 commandments or the spirit of the beatitudes, the Great Commission, etc.).
What about the perosn who believes, behaves and is baptized, but doesn't attend/isn't a memeber of a church?
When you define something, I think you need to look for the thing (or things) without which the person clearly does not meet the definition. If you list five essentials, failure to meet any one of those is an exclusion from the definition.
In my opinion, it is belief that is the defining rule.
That being said, there is considerable discussion about what beliefs are essential for the Christian, which brings me back to the creeds, which is where I was at the beginning of the thread.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Did Hitler really self-identify as a Christian? He was a baptized Catholic and used religion/Christianity to serve political ends, but he also persecuted Christians like Bonhoffer who opposed his regime due to their faith. And wasn't above killing Christians who happened to of the "wrong" ethnicity.
Are there writings where he calls himself a Christian in the first person? I attempted to read Mein Kampf years ago, never got through it but don't remember anything.
(Of course, even if so, one could make the same statements about Stalin's atheism. Stalin was a student at a Georgian Orthodox seminary in his early years so had a fairly deep understanding of what he ultimately rejected.)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I don't think the word can be taken back and given a specific meaning (although some Evangelicals seem to be trying to give it their own meaning). I sometimes introduce myself as "a Christian but not that kind" without defining "that" and those I say it to seem to understand. More often I avoid the word anymore, because I cannot know what strange meanings it will have in a hearer's mind.
I'm blanking on that current political leader who is killing many while claiming to be a Christian. And in the minds of some elderly Jewish acquaintances "Christian" is associated with persecution, I guess some followers of Islam from long-memory cultures think that way, too. (But I have met Christians who say the Crusades were good, so one can't even say Crusades were not Christian behavior and have agreement.)
Then there are the church-going clergy who deny the resurrection or teach pursuit of money, disagreements on Jesus' status then or now, as well as the Catholic/Protestant divide and the liturgical/nondenominational divide, and pick a doctrine some Christian group doesn't do it - baptism and Salvation Army but I'd pick SA ahead of some baptizing groups as followers of God.
I guess Christian is anyone who claims the word and non-Christian is anyone who claims they aren't but the word is meaningless now except in it's broadest sense of "not atheist and not following a specific religion that self-defines as not-Christian."
One has to be careful about making judgments based on the word - like seeking a "Christian" book to read, a "Christian" viewpoint about something, a "Christian" worker to hire, a "Christian" community to participate in. Jonestown, anyone? Look beyond the word and decide based on something else.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
Is there any evidence that this was more than lip service to the "Christian" culture he lived in?
And I'll grant that "the love of Christ" is hard to define sometimes, but I also think you'd have to really do some wacky linguistic contortions to explain how the love shown in Jesus Christ was evidenced in his life.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Good for him.
quote:
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
No I don't, because I don't say that.
He wasn't a very nice person, of course. But that's a different issue.
Posted by Candide (# 15755) on
:
Definitions are always problematic. I'm a fan of definitions that work well with the greater context. When it comes to religion and members of religion, I think there are two major types of discussions wherein the definition of who is and who is not a Christian is relevant. (These aren't the only ones of course, just what I've experienced to be the dominant ones).
-Normative discussions - wherein the issue at hand is what is the ideal sort of life and actions for a member of the religion. Who is a member and who is not a member is determined by their adherence to the religious code (which can be either very specific or very roomy).
-And what you might call social discussions - wherein the entirety of the religion and its members are debated in connection with their effects on this world. Who is a member and who is not is determined by whether or not they themselves identify as members of the religion, and is accepted as such by at least some others who also belong to the same faith.
While everyone does tend to have their own image of what is a minimum definition of a Christian, then most would agree that Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code. However he was part of Christianity in a social sense, belonging to the group of people who identified with Christianity.
Personally, I've had a good bit of use from letting context determine definition in this way. It has a duality that allows violent extremists to be part of the "Christian social phenomenon" (or the Islamic social phenomenon, or whatever), but to exclude them from being Christian in a normative sense.
True, such a method can easily be misused if you set the normative standards too high, a not too uncommon problem with minority sects that tend to think they are only true members of their faith. But if you avoid that trap, then this is a general approach that tends to have good practical use.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
This was in response to sabine's post on the RC thread, but as I'm not RC, I figured it wasn't appropriate to post there.
And yeah, it turned into a rant. I think what's frustrating me isn't the people involved but a set of principles that I'm wrestling with at the moment. I think I've avoided anything personal, but if anything seems so...well, I've yet to be called to Hell before, but there's always a first time.
Enjoy!
If religion is a man-made thing, then everyone who claims Christ religiously is by definition an idolater, fundamentally a fraud in the biggest scam the world has ever known.
It's my view that to separate faith from practice is the beginning of a lot of spiritual fucked-up-ness. They're two things, yes, but they're bound to each other intimately. James' dangerous little epistle is in the canon for a very good reason.
Practice is one of the two only things that matter. The other is faith. Again, separating the two isn't something I condone. In the gospels, Christ never told us what to think, he told us what to do.
Sometimes hard things need to be done. Again, maybe I'm spending too much time with John Wesley, but there's a point where "But it's haaaaard!" is only a lame excuse. I'm not going to say that every person who struggles with the Church falls under that category, but I'd like to see if we can figure out where that line is instead of pretending that it's not there when there's plenty of evidence in the Bible, in the Tradition, in Logic, and even in my own Experience that there must be a line somewhere. Again, the whole Do this thing...
At the same time, I have no interest whatsoever in figuring out who's "real" and who's "not real." I'm much more interested in finding out where "reality" is for my own selfish interest in salvation, healing, ultimate concern, or whatever you (rhetorical) want to call it that brings you to the Church. I would think that a person who professed any faith at all in Christ would want to know what Christ was all about, rather than thinking that it's all a self-serving lie made up by people who want to comfort themselves with so much spiritual wanking. Discipleship to one's naturally self-serving ego is not discipleship. It's sanctified laziness.
Lots of people go out on limbs. I'm one of them. But some of those limbs snapped. Sometimes certain things are wrong because they're wrong, not merely because they're minority views and the Big Bad Institution doesn't like them. As a limb-crawler, I will not accept that my climbing out on a limb is going to legitimate every single fucked up theology the Fred Phelps brigade comes up with under the gauzy blanket of ultra-subjective "tolerance" that leaves every matter of Christian discipleship up to "well, it's whatever you want it to be."
If an organism doesn't have some control over the boundaries between what's inside and what's outside, I think there's a good argument that it's functionally dead.
Posted by old codger (# 14325) on
:
I like to describe myself as a "sort of Christian" - but I am not sure what that means myself !
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Sarkshooter
The list may represent things that amount to a full Christian life (normative definition?) I think it's probably putting it too high to say they are all essentials. E.g. Salvationists and baptism, and it's a bit medieval-sounding to say 'be baptised or else!' I'm sure it's possible to be a Christian without belonging to a church, but for many I think it would make it difficult. Even belief (which I'm not great at) probably isn't as defining as you might think. If elements are missing or not prominent, they may be areas that could grow to give a fuller Christian life (I think that's how Dan Clark sees it).
I wonder, if you try to pin it down too much, whether you end up with a definition that either excludes too many or leads to a social construction of Christianity (70% of UK citizens identify as Christian).
Welcome to the Ship Candide. I liked your post and have nicked your ideas.
Old Codger, speaking as someone who was a demi-Christian for years, I think I know what you're getting at! Personally speaking, bits of Christian life were present, but not enough for me to feel that I was bona-fide.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
To me a person who claims to have a belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ,that person is a Christian.
We are,I think, all sinners and all fall short of perfection,but it doesn't make us any the less Christian - if we want to be considered as a Christian.
There is no point in arguing ,for example, about whether Stalin was a Christian or not because he was baptised. He was baptised,he was raised as a Christian and was,I think, supposed to train as a priest before he abandoned belief in christianity.
None of this is important,however.Each person's life,here on earth,irrespective of whether they call themselves Christian or not,will be scrutinised by Almighty God,who will take everything into account -(things which we mortals cannot necessarily understand) before admitting their soul to Heaven or banishing them to Hell - is that not Christian belief ?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge.
I'm having trouble thinking of any context where it would make sense to me not to let people self-define as Christian. I understand about having our own opinions about other Christians, but when would it make sense or be a good idea to challenge anyone who self-identifies as such?
And I don't know if those teeth you refer to are someone else's or your own, but the idea of that kind of reaction is perplexing to me. Why would someone else's concept of themselves be a matter that grates so much? I realize that your situation is completely different than mine, and that you have to deal with people in ways that I never have to, but my imagination is failing to help me understand. Perhaps when you speak of rejection, you refer to situations where you find that rejecting someone as mistakenly (or delusionally) Christian is necessary and appropriate?
Well, let's get personal. Frankly I'd love to tell Phred Phelps and Co. that you may not, under any circumstances, call yourself a Christian. Phred behaves in a manner that brings major pain to thousands of people and major shame on the whole body of Christ. Moreover, he does it in the name of Christ himself, claiming that God is commanding him to do so, and not just as an ordinary act of jackassery.
This makes Phred an ass and a blasphemer, many times over. It offends me deeply to hear him pull the Christian blanket over actions that are clearly from the adversary. And you have only to read the news to see how offensive that is to any number of other people, Christian or not.
But ... I can't stop Phred from hating. I can't even stop him from doing it under the name of Christ. Yes, it puts my teeth severely on edge, particularly when various non-Christians cast him up to me and demand to know why they should give a second thought to Christ if this is the kind of behavior He encourages.
The best I can do is to explain that by all the available evidence, Phred has never been within smelling distance of real Christianity. No doubt that's offensive of me. I'll just have to live with it. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Candide (# 15755) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
From a normative perspective, if said Pope for instance murdered hundreds of innocents, and had no regrets about doing so, then I would indeed have a hard time considering that Pope to be a Christian in a normative sense. However in a sociological sense than any major church leader is obviously a Christian, (at least as long as they are accepted as leaders by some of their followers.)
It's not a yes/no question. The definition, in my mind, needs to be dependent on the greater context of the discussion you need the definition for. If you are discussing Christian morality then you need a slightly different definition than if you are discussing Christian hierarchies and decision-making.
(Just what specifically should be the minimum definition of a Christian in a normative sense is not something I'd dare to specify. But I do think there should be one, and that violent, unrepentant mass murderers usually have crossed over on the other side.)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
I'm sure there have been lots of Protestants who'd say they weren't.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It offends me deeply to hear him pull the Christian blanket over actions that are clearly from the adversary. And you have only to read the news to see how offensive that is to any number of other people, Christian or not.
I see what you mean now - thank you. The fact that he is so public about his type of Christianity makes it perfectly legitimate for the rest of us to publically voice our opinions about it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
<tangent alert> I see that the Jews are having the same problem.
lead article here
<carry on>
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The Jewish version looks to have far more serious consequences than the Christian version. Wow it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
<tangent alert> I see that the Jews are having the same problem.
lead article here
<carry on>
I've often wondered why Jewish communities didn't get caught up in these identity crises as much as Christian communities seem to. Apparently they do.
I guess ordaining the state to make the call does lend it a certain enforceability, but then you get the question of whether the state can really speak on behalf of God. Are these the new Sadducees?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I probably should have noticed that this thread was having the exact same problem about conflating "who is a Christian" and "who gets to Heaven" as is occurring in another thread about Spongites.
I didn't notice until now. But now I have.
They are two different steps in a reasoning process. It really is a non sequitur to leap from one to the other.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
In some posts, yes, but only a small minority. Unless you choose to read the posts that don't mention Heaven through that lens as well.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0