Please first off understand I am not a christian, I count myself as a Pagan.
I feel an imbalance has been made in the forum recently and some of us have not posted their point of view for fear of exasperating the problems led by a certain individual.
Also notice a lack of "Nihilist, nazi, cultist" comments.
That said there were recently a couple of points raised that I wish to question.
I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would like to make the point that I don't agree with this point of view, I am just looking to discuss these points, it is co-incidnece that the quotes are Homonid's, his were the first I found making this sort of point.
(1)Christianity vs The Bible.Quote from: Hominid on February 09, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
...He was faced with the contradiction of self-applying the label "Christian", yet not self-applying what the bible says. It's a logical fallacy to do so, and BD was pointing that out in a very succinct way. Lots of people want to give themselves titles and labels, but don't take the tenets of that belief system seriously. People who do that will eventually get called on it at some point.
I have to disagree with this point of view. If it were so why are there so many different versions of christianity?
If you go back to christianities origins there were many versions of the creed, multiple versions based on differing points of view taught by different disciples.
It is widely accepted that most of the new testament was not actually written down until at least about eighty years after the event, if not later.
It just happens that the roman version systematically removed many of the other points of view (Coptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria), Arian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) amongst others. All with their own version of the bible, here please refer to the Nag Hammadi index or library (http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html), a set of Coptic texts, unfortunately I have no reference for Arian Christianity apart from a mention in roman sources that the Vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals) practiced it).
It is not until the Vulgate Bible (http://www.drbo.org/lvb/) (late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. Largely the work of St. Jerome) that a coherent version of the Roman Bible appeared. The final canon of Scripture, was settled on 28 August 397 AD by the Council of Carthage after the example set by St Cyril of Jerusalem in 350.
This goes before any consideration of the versions from Luthers, King James, the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, to the Amesh interpretation.
My point actually being that the line you are taking is needlessly dogmatic view point of one version of the text.
Also the point of does not allow for personal preference. Zen Buddhism would not exist if it applied to the strict word of the sutra, they choose to rely on the Diamond sutra (http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/diamondsutra.html), as Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism would not exist, theme and variation.
There is no absolute "what the bible says" and I see no problem with someone claiming to be christian, what ever their choice of parts of the bible they find palatable.
Your argument would stand if individuals were claiming to be Catholic and not applying to the Catholic creed but this is different. There are specific rules for Catholocism, there are not for Christianity.
I think you are making exactly the same mistake Icon was making, except his was about Dudeism, and yours is about christianity. You both are confusing the finger pointing with the moon it is pointing to. You (generally) in opposition of christianity though.
Finally
Quote from: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
or my own favourite
Quote from: European Convention on Human Rights Article 9
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I personally rely on these to rights as a practicing Pagan (more correctly Neo-Pagan)
Again if all we can do is agree to disagree that is fine but I feel this point of view should be represented for a balance.
I am neither Anti or pro christian, I am only representing what I think is their right to practice what they want the way they want.
(2) Natural Law.Quote from: Hominid on February 09, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
...Most of us know by instinct what is moral and what isn't anyways...
Again I have to argue with this point of view. Laws and morals are impositions by society that aid the perpetuation of the society. There is no such thing as natural law. An individual will try to get away with what ever they can get away with. Laws and morals exist in order to drive back chaos (the true natural state of all things), and to allow society to progress beyond a bunch of cavemen beating each other up over food and mating.
(3) End Word.Hopefully that restores some of the balance.
Again, I am not a christian, I am not trying to start a flame war, but am a religious individual and stand by anyone's right to practice, or not practice, their religion any way they see fit.Yours
Simon (meekon5) Kennedy,
GENUINE AND AUTHORIZED POPE,
Existentialist, Postmodernist, Taoist, Pagan, Dudeist.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 10, 2014, 09:34:55 AM
Please first off understand I am not a christian, I count myself as a Pagan.
I feel an imbalance has been made in the forum recently and some of us have not posted their point of view for fear of exasperating the problems led by a certain individual.
Also notice a lack of "Nihilist, nazi, cultist" comments.
That said there were recently a couple of points raised that I wish to question.
I am not attempting to start a flame war, I would like to make the point that I don't agree with this point of view, I am just looking to discuss these points, it is co-incidnece that the quotes are Homonid's, his were the first I found making this sort of point.
(1)Christianity vs The Bible.
Quote from: Hominid on February 09, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
...He was faced with the contradiction of self-applying the label "Christian", yet not self-applying what the bible says. It's a logical fallacy to do so, and BD was pointing that out in a very succinct way. Lots of people want to give themselves titles and labels, but don't take the tenets of that belief system seriously. People who do that will eventually get called on it at some point.
I have to disagree with this point of view. If it were so why are there so many different versions of christianity?
If you go back to christianities origins there were many versions of the creed, multiple versions based on differing points of view taught by different disciples.
Hey, I'm often the first to step up, so no offence taken. And of course there's no need for flame wars; that's for people who can't control their temper. That said, I will defend my stance.
I understand you from a technical or dogmatic standpoint, but your point is moot because Icon fits into one very specific small slice of Christianity... an evangelical holier-than-thou fundie. Just because there are so many versions of Christianity out there, it does nothing to negate that fact he couldn't stand up to what any (read: HIS) Christian bible has in its texts: they all describe a god who sanctions murder, rape, slavery, etc... nothing to do with creeds (maybe I misused the word "tenets"?) that address smaller issue of dogma; all bibles have the same stories... So if I'm missing the import of what you're saying M5, pls explain.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 10, 2014, 09:34:55 AM
(2) Natural Law.
Quote from: Hominid on February 09, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
...Most of us know by instinct what is moral and what isn't anyways...
Again I have to argue with this point of view. Laws and morals are impositions by society that aid the perpetuation of the society. There is no such thing as natural law. An individual will try to get away with what ever they can get away with. Laws and morals exist in order to drive back chaos (the true natural state of all things), and to allow society to progress beyond a bunch of cavemen beating each other up over food and mating.
Part of me agrees with you, another part doesn't... It actually sounds more like an opinion than an authoritatively sourced absolute. Who says there is no such thing as natural law? You have to remember that we are evolving as a species... Civilization seems to have reached the point of understanding that in order to thrive, we have learned to not cause intentional harm or suffering. Take away government and the law (such as in natural disasters like Katrina and 9/11), and yes - you have the looters and murderers. BUT - you also have many stories of people whose natural instinct is to risk their lives saving others.
I agree that there are individuals who live by chaos, getting away with whatever they can, but please don't characterize all of us in that light.
I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude. 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on February 10, 2014, 10:22:49 PM
I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude. 8)
I am a religious refugee as well, so I hear you! It's taken a lot of work to extricate myself from it all, and I agree that childhood indoctrination can be akin to abuse, particularly when you're told THE only way to not be condemned is to say the sinner's prayer, or get baptised, and keep going to confession and mass. All these conditions... it's exhausting!
I was lucky I was brought up without any religious indoctrination.
As a teenager studied religion extensively (particularly Zen Buddhism after having found Christmas Humphreys, Taoism after linking him in with Alan Watts), Paganism came later, and is fact a vehicle to apply archetypes (based on ideas of my personal ancestry) to the mess that is my subconscious, problem is occasionally they talk back for themselves.
I agree anyone who doesn't question what they are told should be held in contempt as ignorant.
Quote from: Hominid on February 10, 2014, 10:56:36 PM
Quote from: cckeiser on February 10, 2014, 10:22:49 PM
I know i should stay the fuck out of these discussions, but....well Fuck it!
My stance on this as a recovering Catholic.
Everyone who believes in a "God" has been mind fucked...most likely since birth. They have all been brainwashed into believing in pure Nonsense. Any one teaching Theism to a child should be arrested for Child Abuse!
Just like my opinion dude. 8)
I am a religious refugee as well, so I hear you! It's taken a lot of work to extricate myself from it all, and I agree that childhood indoctrination can be akin to abuse, particularly when you're told THE only way to not be condemned is to say the sinner's prayer, or get baptised, and keep going to confession and mass. All these conditions... it's exhausting!
This actually explains the problem I think. Lapsed Catholics are the worst ;D
Seriously though it explains your attitude towards the bible. The Catholic line has always been they are right and their copy of the bible is absolute (despite the copious historical evidence to the contrary). Church of England (and other protestant lines) tend towards the "pick the bits you want to believe", a convenience I know but the reality of the situation. Even the Catholics pick and choose, you don't see them sacrificing lambs on the alter.
Yes the bible does read like Mein Kampf in places.
My major point has to stand that who ever has a right to practice their religion how they see fit, and actually a number branches of christianity have arisen from trying to ascertain Christs actual message from the dogmatic line of the text, still calling themselves "christian".
Christianity itself is a deviance from the book.
Quote from: Hominid on February 10, 2014, 09:22:10 PM
all bibles have the same stories...
Actually this is not the case, all modern bibles are a version of the Roman Catholic bible, so they do. But if you look at the Nag Hammadi Library it includes books not in the current accepted version of the bible (the gospel according to Mary Magdalene, the gospel according to Tomas the Doubter, the gospel according to Judas, for instance).
*Sigh* - you're missing my main point (and perhaps it's my fault that I'm not specific enough), that all bibles have the same stories of god being a murderous, jealous dude who sanctions rape, slavery, etc. Missing gospels or not. And, I'm not a lapsed Catholic... http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html (http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html)
Quote from: Hominid on February 11, 2014, 06:24:18 AM
*Sigh* - you're missing my main point (and perhaps it's my fault that I'm not specific enough), that all bibles have the same stories of god being a murderous, jealous dude who sanctions rape, slavery, etc. Missing gospels or not. And, I'm not a lapsed Catholic... http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html (http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html)
Then I think we're both missing each others points.
I get the fact that the bible has all the nasty stuff in it, but you're consistently missing the point I'm making that christianity (at it's beginning) and now does have a tradition of being off the book. The Pharisees main problem with jesus was that he refused to follow what they saw as the absolute interpretation of the book.
I am saying you can be a christian without the book.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 11, 2014, 06:38:46 AM
Quote from: Hominid on February 11, 2014, 06:24:18 AM
*Sigh* - you're missing my main point (and perhaps it's my fault that I'm not specific enough), that all bibles have the same stories of god being a murderous, jealous dude who sanctions rape, slavery, etc. Missing gospels or not. And, I'm not a lapsed Catholic... http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html (http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html)
Then I think we're both missing each others points.
I get the fact that the bible has all the nasty stuff in it, but you're consistently missing the point I'm making that christianity (at it's beginning) and now does have a tradition of being off the book. The Pharisees main problem with jesus was that he refused to follow what they saw as the absolute interpretation of the book.
I am saying you can be a christian without the book.
Far out, M5 Dude, Far Out. Totally dig it. 8)
Meekon's first point is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, to say only those with red beards are Scotsmen is the same as saying only those who read the Bible a certain way are Christian. When the fact is there are many colors of beard in Scotland and many ways of being Christian.
Second point is wrong, there is a natural state of empathy, brought on by mirror neurons and oxytocin. Us and other mammals have a natural morality built in by evolution. Empathy is the basis of our species and our morality. This is beyond even the work of Sam Harris and his moral landscape. Modern science is teaching us that even our robots are going to need to experience pain and loss, and then apply that understanding to being empathetic toward others. Suffering and by extension empathy are key to consciousness, with out them interacting with the physical world would be difficult at best and maybe impossible to sustain otherwise.
Third, there is a difference between being tolerant and being discerning, not all beliefs and ways of believing are created equal.
QuoteI am saying you can be a christian without the book.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, if there's no book, there's no label. Like BD's analogy: if one only believes in 10% of Nazi-ism, you can't really call yourself a Nazi...
Both are right, out of the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity Meekon describes the majority, but there are always outliers, so there are those who are not Christian but rather just douchebags. It is a matter of perspective, the picture changes depending on how closely you view it, from a distance Meekon is absolutely right, there is a clear line between this and that. But when you zoom in you see the line is a bit fuzzy and that is where Hominid's case is strengthened. Your disagreement is not actually a matter of definition but rather one of geography (metaphorically).
Interestingly put revgms... I like your style dude.
+1
Quote from: Hominid on February 11, 2014, 08:36:26 AM
QuoteI am saying you can be a christian without the book.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, if there's no book, there's no label. Like BD's analogy: if one only believes in 10% of Nazi-ism, you can't really call yourself a Nazi...
I think you're right I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.
and thanks Revgms
Quote from: revgms on February 11, 2014, 09:19:46 AM
Both are right, out of the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity Meekon describes the majority, but there are always outliers, so there are those who are not Christian but rather just douchebags. It is a matter of perspective, the picture changes depending on how closely you view it, from a distance Meekon is absolutely right, there is a clear line between this and that. But when you zoom in you see the line is a bit fuzzy and that is where Hominid's case is strengthened. Your disagreement is not actually a matter of definition but rather one of geography (metaphorically).
I think that's about as far as we can take it.
I did just feel that the point of view had to be made, as it was being crushed by the idiocy of certain other individuals actions ;D
And in my opinion neither Taoism or Dudeism gives a fuck.
I'm an Anti-theist and Shagbeard is a non-affiliated Christian. Dudeism doesn't care.
As DigitalBuddha has already stated....Dudeism just says....take er easy dudes....can't be worried about that shit....life goes on man.
Abide dudes.....abide. 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on February 11, 2014, 04:16:57 PM
And in my opinion neither Taoism or Dudeism gives a fuck.
I'm an Anti-theist and Shagbeard is a non-affiliated Christian. Dudeism doesn't care.
As DigitalBuddha has already stated....Dudeism just says....take er easy dudes....can't be worried about that shit....life goes on man.
Abide dudes.....abide. 8)
I agree but the whole point was we were represented as intolerant of a point of view and I felt we needed to discuss it properly.
I have to admit I probably seem to be one of the major "anti-christians" at times. It just worried me that we were all seeming "anti-christian", instead of the small percentage of us that may actually have problems with christians.
;D
Perception is everything. His take-away was a result of his own filters.
Quote from: Hominid on February 11, 2014, 04:59:05 PM
Perception is everything. His take-away was a result of his own filters.
It's not about Icon, but about the rest of the people who may look at the recent conversations, and certain people who felt undue pressure due to having the sort of beliefs that Icon claimed to have.
Circulating on face book at the moment
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1912070_595388233886159_1343487622_n.png)
The flaw with every human deduced hyper reality is that it assumes humans are all subject to the same effects of mirror neurons and thus are capable of empathy. The problem is there are a shit load of sociopaths out there. Then there are the weak, fearful and stupid out there as well.
Empathy is the key to everything, it is not a belief it is an experience, but some are unable and others unwilling to cultivate those experiences. Thus all the hyper realities (religion, politics, economics) are doomed by the insinuation of the human element.
It will be the case that our robots and cyborgs will be more human (empathy being the key trait of humanity) than many biologics that self apply the label today.
Simply, our culture is a reflection of our brain architecture and chemistry, not our beliefs. It's a hardware and OS problem.
Quote from: revgms on February 12, 2014, 09:53:16 AM
The flaw with every human deduced hyper reality is that it assumes humans are all subject to the same effects of mirror neurons and thus are capable of empathy. The problem is there are a shit load of sociopaths out there. Then there are the weak, fearful and stupid out there as well.
Empathy is the key to everything, it is not a belief it is an experience, but some are unable and others unwilling to cultivate those experiences. Thus all the hyper realities (religion, politics, economics) are doomed by the insinuation of the human element.
It will be the case that our robots and cyborgs will be more human (empathy being the key trait of humanity) than many biologics that self apply the label today.
Simply, our culture is a reflection of our brain architecture and chemistry, not our beliefs. It's a hardware and OS problem.
The selfish genes one prerogative is to reproduce.
The fact that there a many DIFFERENT versions of Christianity points the the fact that it is not in fact just a matter of pulling it out of your ass as you go along.
If a group differs from a given Churches sanctioned beliefs they formally break off and form a new church. With a new set of well outlined beliefs sanctioned by the new church. These breaks constitute big news ala Martin Luther.
What grinds my gears is the typical "make it up as you go along" version that seems to suggest that the bible is just a personal thing that you throw out the inconvenient parts as you go along. That essentially has no meaning. It's fine for a person individually to do that but in essence it makes it impossible to talk about what constitutes belief. Clearly it becomes absurd to talk about the "Gospel according to Tom and Sally and Dick etc etc etc etc." People go to school for Theology/ Others devote a lifetime in the Church to the study of the bible. Suggesting that any person working as a greeter at Walmart can just make up there own version of faith would be about as meaningful as you or me making up our own version of the theory of relativity. Sure we can do it but why should anybody else care?
There are different versions of Christianity but usually the differences are actually pretty small details.
For instance...
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/differ.html (http://www.orlutheran.com/html/differ.html)
There is usually not a lot of hair splitting over the bible versus. That is pretty universally agreed upon.
The contents of the bible has been very very carefully considered. Just thinking Jesus was a pretty cool dude does not by any definition even come close to making a person a Christian. A person has to at least believe in the divinity of Jesus. The big bullet points. Virgin birth, son of God, rose from the dead, will return to judge.
None are optional in any way shape or form. Otherwise every Muslim could be considered a Christian. The Quran teaches the "Jesus was a cool guy" message.
Lost my train of thought...
Like, what's your point? In or two sentences. (I have ADD).
I am married but am going on a date with my special lady friend tomorrow 8)
How about this "Self applying the term Mormon without believing the book of Mormon"?
Would that make sense?
The only reason we ever need to discuss this is because 99% of Christians have never chosen to be Christian.
They were raised that way. It's culture not belief. But as far as actual Christianity goes the term describes a set of beliefs.
It has meaning. For many many Christians self applying the term Christian is virtually like choosing a sports team to root for.
Got it. And, your point particularly applies in countries where religion & culture are inseparable, such as the middle east... born into such a culture leaves no wiggle room at all.
Quote from: Hominid on February 16, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
Got it. And, your point particularly applies in countries where religion & culture are inseparable, such as the middle east... born into such a culture leaves no wiggle room at all.
Not really.
My point is that wiggle room is not even an issue. There is at least some level of belief necessary to make the statement "I am a Christian" in fact true It is in fact a statement of belief. It seems to have reached a point where essentially no belief in anything is necessary. It's more a statement of "I call myself a member of that team".
I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to be a Christian one would have to at least believe in the things that Jesus Christ is supposed to have said and that any common definition of Christian would include the divinity of Jesus Christ.
For people to suggest being Christian means something that does not even include that is NOT wiggle room. It is making the term meaningless.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 11, 2014, 06:38:46 AM
Quote from: Hominid on February 11, 2014, 06:24:18 AM
*Sigh* - you're missing my main point (and perhaps it's my fault that I'm not specific enough), that all bibles have the same stories of god being a murderous, jealous dude who sanctions rape, slavery, etc. Missing gospels or not. And, I'm not a lapsed Catholic... http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html (http://www.niceguyjim.com/wolfspeak/escape.html)
Then I think we're both missing each others points.
I get the fact that the bible has all the nasty stuff in it, but you're consistently missing the point I'm making that christianity (at it's beginning) and now does have a tradition of being off the book. The Pharisees main problem with jesus was that he refused to follow what they saw as the absolute interpretation of the book.
I am saying you can be a christian without the book.
I don't think there is any possible way to make this case.
Christ said that you need the book. Including the old testament.
Actually it was only the old testament when he spoke of course.
This is the age old difficulty and the reason why the bible remains static.
The old and new testaments form a sort of Gordian Knot that can not be changed without it all unraveling.
The main issue lies with the Divinity of Jesus. Jesus over and over instructed his follows to believe in the "law" (old testament)
If parts are good and others are not then it introduces the concept of the Scripture as fallible. And by extension Jesus Christ's council as NOT DEVINE.
This has been the source of endless Intellectual gymnastics on the part of Christians to extricate themselves but for the most part they look ridiculous. Like the claim that "Slaves where treated much better in the time of Christ".
Christian Apologetics aside it is very clear that Jesus did instruct his follows to believe in the old testament in it's entirety. It was the old testament that he said he would use to Judge all men on the last day.
Quote
He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture)
Quote
A. We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God?s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ?The Scripture cannot be broken? (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ?the commandment of God? (Matthew 15:3) and as the ?Word of God? (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ?Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished? (Matthew 5:18).
When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ?Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?? (Matthew 22:31); ?Yea; and have you never read, ?Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself??? (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ?Have you not read what David did?? (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.
Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot?s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31?51).
The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God?s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn?t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.
There is another position, Followers of Jesus vs. Christians.
Followers of the philosopher/mystic Jesus don't need the Bible to support their faith, but if words mean something, and in essence BD is right, then they are not Christians. Christian does come with the understanding that some level of initiation into the faith is required, and in this case that would be the belief in the divinity of the Christ.
Now followers of Jesus can be just like Taoists, a religion/non-religion all at once, but they should forgo the label Christian, especially if they don not recognize the claims of divinity of the Christ.
Jus say'n
Quote from: revgms on February 17, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
There is another position, Followers of Jesus vs. Christians.
Followers of the philosopher/mystic Jesus don't need the Bible to support their faith, but if words mean something, and in essence BD is right, then they are not Christians. Christian does come with the understanding that some level of initiation into the faith is required, and in this case that would be the belief in the divinity of the Christ.
Now followers of Jesus can be just like Taoists, a religion/non-religion all at once, but they should forgo the label Christian, especially if they don not recognize the claims of divinity of the Christ.
Jus say'n
Hence forth known as "Chinos".
(Christians in Name only)
My concern is less to do with identity or labels than with some set of beliefs that can be intelligently discussed as a thing called "Christianity". So many Chinos insist on an every changing amoebic globule of half belief half culture.
8 year olds Dude. 8 year olds.