posted
I don't want to be considered Christian. I'm just putting forth the view that in my own personal labeling (again, to the extent that labeling is useful), I consider orthodoxy to be an essential component of determining who is a member of a religion and who is not.
To me, a Christian is a Christian if they follow the Christian way of interpreting God's will. If there was a religion called intuitism that says that you follow your moral intuition, then you are an intuitist.
If Christianity's only interpretation of God's will is to believe in Christ as the messiah, then great. But if you have to believe in Christ as divine and you do not, are you still a Christian? If you believe in certain Christian doctrines and not others? My understanding of Christianity (or a particular brand) is that they have certain philosophies that they require adherents to believe. If you don't believe them, then I wouldn't label that person a follower of that particular brand.
(This is all philosophically speaking. I understand that oftentimes, a person's self identification as a member of a particular fiath is important, even to me, in labeling).
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas.
Well, old Chinese ideas. Christianity from their viewpoint is like neither old OR Chinese.
quote:I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Well, yeah.
Even in the West you will have your new agers and your hippies which will try almost anything. Even your Richard Gere and Steven Seagals. Chinese folk religion is if anything even more accommodating in this regard.
But this is neither impressive from my benchmark, nor does it seem to fulfill Mal's benchmark that Christianity is the "meat and potatoes" to the other religions "rice and beans" or "tofu."
If the latter was true, you would expect something a whole lot more compelling.
Well our last few posts grew out of a misunderstanding on my part of your words. I was never in Mal's side of the court regarding Christianity being meat and potatoes while everything else is religion lite. But then again, I'm a member of a small sect of Christianity that thinks everybody else got it wrong, but they are nice people for trying.
Interestingly enough, if Christianity actually succeeded in converting the entire world before Christ came again I would start to think it was doing something wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, I am not sure what you are referring to as "moral intuition" and how you think it applies to me.
There is quite a broad variation in what Christians believe. Much broader than what you might imagine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, what do conservative or reform jews say when you have this type of discussion with them? (genuinely interested)
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, You belong to a religion that regards following the rules as the primary function and that regards these rules as pretty well known. Other religions that don't have these beliefs are obviously going to have a wider leniency when it comes to what members in good standing can do or believe.
I think the disconnect is that other people don't hold the same view of religion as you do, specifically on those two points.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Let's say that what is required to be considered a Christian is an adherence to certain beliefs. Would it make sense, then, for me to apply that standard to your religion and say that adherence to certain beliefs are what is required to be Jewish?
Of course it doesn't. You define your religion how you will; I will do the same.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a distinction between a religion and a philosophy? Often times you hear of Eastern Philosophy and western religion. I didn't intend to offend the non-christian with my meat and potatoes analogy and perhaps many converts of a newly freed nation would do so out of rebellion. Like a rebellious teenager recently released from the shackles of forced belief systems. Maybe I'm stereotyping the likes of Steven Segal and David Carridine, but I can't help but feel they are complete posers. The type of people we've all known in our lives, one year there goth, the next their punk, the next their wearing cowboy hats...flavor of the day.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
I think one of the reasons I stick to that form of labeling is that it is really hard to talk religion with someone who has to tell me from the get-go which beliefs they subscribe to and which they do not. It is easier for me to say - oh, Christian, cool, and check off their beliefs in my brain.
But maybe the convenience of labeling things that way is outweighed by the fact that so many people don't see faith that way.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Let's say that what is required to be considered a Christian is an adherence to certain beliefs. Would it make sense, then, for me to apply that standard to your religion and say that adherence to certain beliefs are what is required to be Jewish?
Of course it doesn't. You define your religion how you will; I will do the same.
Consider a person who says "I believe that Jesus was a prophet but not divine, and did not rise from the dead; that Mohammad had a true revelation from the archangel Gabriel; that it is necessary to pray five times a day, fast during a certain season, and profess one's submission to Allah; and I am a Christian." Can we agree that, firstly, there exists a fact of the matter, so that this person is either Christian or not; and secondly, that he is mistaken?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not arguing that there is a fact of the matter - that a person is a Christian or isn't.
My point is that I have a way of labeling, and I think that most people should/or do have one that is similar. (The reason I jumped in is because it seemed KoM had a similar way of labeling, and because I remember that Kmbboots unique beliefs made it difficult to know where she stood in a religious discussion.
So I'm not trying to define. If someone wants to define themselves as a Christian, that is cool, but I may not consider them as such, and it shouldn't matter to them.
In KoM's example - I would not consider him a Christian, even though he himself professes to be one.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's probably true.
I think one of the reasons I stick to that form of labeling is that it is really hard to talk religion with someone who has to tell me from the get-go which beliefs they subscribe to and which they do not. It is easier for me to say - oh, Christian, cool, and check off their beliefs in my brain.
But maybe the convenience of labeling things that way is outweighed by the fact that so many people don't see faith that way.
Indeed. There is enough variety that labels are usually going to be somewhat misleading without further clarification.
The person in KoM's example should have an interesting story.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
No offense to the atheists out there. I'm trying to keep it on a level of overall religious belief or the inherent belief in God of the vast majority of the human population. We could get into doctrinal details and go around and around - even within faiths, IE Protestant - Catholic or Shia - Sunni this is a never ending struggle, albeit in my opinion more political than religious.
My church often studies and quotes important figures of Judaism, Chatholisism and even Islam. I'm not Lutheran yet hold a high regard for Martin Luther, etc. I prefer my particular church since it acknowledges what these other faiths have contributed to ours. They are our grangfathers, uncles and cousins, one family. Strangely, most Christians, including myself, believe that Jews are the chosen people. Jesus came to save not the Jews but man. I like to view myself simply as a Jew who believes the Messiah has come.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
No. Why should it make a difference if they self-identify as an Orthodox Jew?
When a person attaches a label, it is by his own beliefs, not the beliefs of others. Should I consider you to be the President of all humanity if you claim that you are?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not arguing that there is a fact of the matter - that a person is a Christian or isn't.
This looks ambiguous to me. Are you not arguing against this proposition, or are you not arguing for it?
I understand that Christianity has fuzzy boundaries. But I insist that there is a boundary, and that it is not self-identification.
I note that I did not claim kmb doesn't believe in the resurrection; rather I asked whether it is so, and asserted that a disbelief would make her a non-Christian in any useful classification scheme. I also asserted (and continue to do so) that she is not a Christian on the different grounds that she doesn't believe anything, in the sense of expecting anything to happen differently. "God (or the Universe) is love"; very fine, so what? What would happen differently if the god were not love? You might as well assert that the fimbul is wakalixes; you haven't said anything. You've just made a tribal noise that affiliates you with the god-believer tribe, liberal-suburbia division. Which is very useful for the social aspects, but ultimately no more meaningful than a chimpanzee's flinging of feces that marks a pack boundary.
Mal, did you intend to respond to my questions on the previous page?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
I like to view myself simply as a Jew who believes the Messiah has come.
I guess it's an answer...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
No. Why should it make a difference if they self-identify as an Orthodox Jew?
When a person attaches a label, it is by his own beliefs, not the beliefs of others. Should I consider you to be the President of all humanity if you claim that you are?
You had earlier said:
"I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not." (my bolding) instead of:
'I would not consider a self-identifying Jew as Jewish if their mother were not,'
so I was curious if this definition could be side-stepped (in your view) by living strictly according to Jewish orthodoxy.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are fuzzy boundaries in this conversation. Semantics used in politics and religion. Maybe someday they'll develop a crossover cable so people can directly connect and understand each other, not by each person's internal dictionary or attempt to spin the words, but my intended meaning.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we wait for that happy day, perhaps you'd consider doing your bit for clear communications by responding to questions asked of you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, without going into why the divinity/humanity of Jesus is, historically such an issue, or the politics of the fourth century, or why the Nicene creed emphasized what it did compared to the Apostles creed and so forth, I will just say that I find too much concern over who is "in" and who is out to be, well...unchristian.
You might, if you really wanted to learn about some of this stuff, read Garry Wills's Why I am a Catholic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I was never in Mal's side of the court regarding Christianity being meat and potatoes while everything else is religion lite. But then again, I'm a member of a small sect of Christianity that thinks everybody else got it wrong, but they are nice people for trying.
Ah, I guess you can understand if I'm a bit on the fence as to which is "better"
In the context of this conversation, I mostly only have problems with the former as a way of modelling what is actually going on in the world. The consequences to the latter are a bit more opaque to me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christ is certainly central to Christianity and I'm quite sure there are many Christians who struggle with the resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc. Having an internal struggle with one's faith does not exclude you from that faith. I'm sure there are homosexual Christians and plenty of alcoholic Christians who struggle with and choose to ignore aspects of their faith. Fortunately, we are all flawed and can be forgiven.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Catholic is a Christian denomination headed by the Pope. Throughout history politician have hijacked meaningful words, ie progressives, conservatives, etc.
I view Catholics as part of the catholic faith.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. If you commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, you can not be forgiven. Says so right in the gospels. Possibly you're not certain what the sin against the Holy Spirit consists of; that's not unusual, people have been uncertain of it for 2000 years. But recent research has clarified the mystery; theres a part of the apocrypha that were thrown out for being too obscure, which is not surprising, since expecting people in 363 CE to know what an internet forum is, was a bit optimistic. In fact, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists of repeatedly ignoring direct questions on discussion forums.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"catholic" was replaced with "Christian". Even discussions within this post about who is or isn't a Jew point out what happens when a faith starts to expel people who have varying degrees of being a good member of the faith.
The Catholic church once was the catholic church. Once Christians start to eat their own: charge fees for forgiveness, use the faith to ensure political power or decide you're not a good/real Christian because of A or B, they stop being Christ like and new denominations sprout up within the catholic faith, none perfect-all flawed because man is imperfect and flawed.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well. Only another self-deluder, then, unwilling to critically examine his own ideas an inch beyond the point of discomfort. C'est la vie, c'est la theisme.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've critically examined my beliefs yet I understand that others who critically examine theirs may have a slightly or completely different conclusion. It's between them and God.
You may have hoped or assumed that this right wing Christian would be more intolerant.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'd hoped you were interested in learning why you believe as you do, or perhaps even changing your mind - the two great purposes of discussion - and would continue the conversation we were having.
You, on the other hand, appear to have believed or assumed that this atheist could be intimidated by invoking that shibboleth of the left, tolerance. I do not consider tolerance a virtue, being in fact quite intolerant of sloppy thinking and silly beliefs myself. As far as I'm concerned, you do not have a right to any factual belief you can't back with evidence, and had I the power I would enforce that with guns. Tolerance is considered a good thing in the west because the Christian churches fought each other into stalemate in a disastrous civil war, and now enforce the resulting truce of exhaustion with all the weapons at their command. Thus their rent-seekers can spend the money they scam out of their parishioners on themselves instead of weapons. In other words, they don't have the courage of their convictions, and malign those who do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While tolerance may lead to some unfortunate results, such as sloppy thinking, I do think that is merely a side effect of a much greater benefit that tolerance affords.
We, as humans, are ultimately flawed. We are ridiculously biased by our own biological predispositions, environment, culture, faith, particular syndromes developed through relationships with our siblings, etc. Tolerance allows for productive coexistence by empathically acknowledging that other people make mistakes.
I, personally, reserve judgment when I believe someone is wrong, because I have no indication over whether that person is evil, or merely mistaken.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your adjective shows the disconnect: Making a mistake on fundamental issues such as the existence of gods is not 'mere'. It is an enormous and egregious error. Usually the error is moral, more rarely it is an error in reasoning; either way, it must be corrected as soon as possible.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny. I find the disconnect between us on your emphasis of the quality of mistake. I see mistake as such an inherent part of the human condition, and the deep flaw of humanity as a major stumbling block that demands tolerance.
I think that each person is responsible to use morality and reason to overcome such a heavy bias, but since the task is so unique to each individual, no one can judge how his fellow human being is untangling himself. Hence, tolerance.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A tradition of tolerance is one protection against the mindless mob. That tolerance permits the continued existence of falsehoods is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, by-product.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Christ is certainly central to Christianity and I'm quite sure there are many Christians who struggle with the resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc.
Just curious, because this is a common confusion, but you do know that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Jesus, yes? That is, the specific grace of preservation from Original Sin uniquely granted to Mary because she, in the eternal "now" of chairos, gave her fiat already?
Also, just out of curiosity: what denomination do you identify with?
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'd hoped you were interested in learning why you believe as you do, or perhaps even changing your mind - the two great purposes of discussion - and would continue the conversation we were having.
Which of these two purposes is your purpose for holding this conversation? To change your mind? Or to learn why you believe as you do?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone engages in a discussion to have their mind changed, they've probably already changed it and lack the courage to act. When I engage in a conversation with someone, I tend to be more interested in what they believe and why they believe what they do. Debate is a different issue.
If I were searching for self understaning, I wouldn't find it in another person's opinion, but I might through the understanding of others. I learned the most about myself after leaving a small town where I was surrounded by people just like me. If I didn't want my comfort zone challenged, I wouldn't return to Hatrack.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Sorry to come back to this - I realize the conversation has probably moved on - but I haven't had access.
Anyway, can you suggest a scenario whereby you might come to such a conclusion?
For instance, imagine I belonged to a religion where the moral belief system relied upon a fundamental principle that it was always wrong to eat animals of any kind. And then imagine I had a child with a medical condition who had to eat meat daily or he'd die. That might lead me to observe that eating meat couldn't be always wrong. In that case, if not eating meat were so fundamental to the religion that I couldn't imagine it being true without that moral principle, then I'd have to reject the religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If eventually I realized I was deceiving myself all these years and discovered I was actually a homosexual in a heterosexual relationship to satisfy religious pressures, I would probably switch to Episcopalian.
On the other hand,
If I were a king and wanted an annulment to produce an heir, not knowing that syphilis had sterilized me, I might create my own church with all the same tenants, except the one that inconvenienced me.
Even the Catholic church makes exceptions for extreme circumstances. Their policy on contraception is clear but my mother was had her tubes tied because the doctor told her she probably couldn't survive another childbirth...and it was cleared through the church.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Do you see religion as an expression of God's will? Or do you see it as man's best guess, in which case, when it violates your moral intuition, you reject the religious principles that contradict.
Say you knew, for a fact, it was God's will not to have homosexual intercourse. In the above hypo, would you still switch?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe my sarcasm didn't come through. I believe it is an expressions of God's will but people have tainted organized religion with politics and personal ambition. I can't see a situation where I would actually reject any of my current religious principles but I accept that others might have different principles. Just as I disagree with the living and breathing concept of the US Constitution, I believe religious beliefs shouldn't often bend to the social/political climate of the day unless the church is corrupt and abusing the faith for other reasons. Most other Christian denominations sprouted during these times. I make a distinction between the universal christian church and denominations that have labels. I believe when Martin Luther left the Catholic faith, he didn't change or abandon the faith rather took it with him. Similarly, when governments are overthrown for being tyrannical, that country doesn't cease to exist but is returned to its proper path. When viewing different religions one could argue the fewer amendments/changes they've experienced over time is evidence of them being closer to the truth. If my church had straw polls or taught that morality was relative, I would realize it wasn't a real church at all but simply a place to receive self affirmation.
quote:If I were a king and wanted an annulment to produce an heir, not knowing that syphilis had sterilized me, I might create my own church with all the same tenants, except the one that inconvenienced me.
There is a difference between actually changing your mind about what is wrong and merely pretending for selfish reasons that what you know is wrong is right, though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree but you could rationalize your selfish reasons into what you perceive as an honest change of heart.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I completely agree but you could rationalize your selfish reasons into what you perceive as an honest change of heart.
I agree that this is something to avoid. Careful consideration, study, and prayer are essential when dissenting from official Church teaching. Also, disagreement with certain tenets* is not always a change of heart; it can be a long and deeply held moral position rather than the result of changing circumstances or new information or insight.
*If you disagree with tenants, you should evict them. Unless they are right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the correction. I forget this is a writer's forum. I'm open minded enough to learn spelling and grammar from you. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
