Obama..... not religious?

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

There's very little to distinguish someone who says "I follow the 'golden rule' laid down by Jesus, but I don't accept that he was divine" with someone who says "I follow the 'golden rule' because it's morally defensible, and I don't give a fico for that guy Jesus."

An even stronger argument is that this does not distinguish them from other religions that contain an ethic of reciprocity code. The "Golden Rule" is just not a Christian concept, it's a nearly universal concept present in almost any religion:

Buddism

Quote:

Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Baha'i Faith

Quote:

Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.

Confucianism

Quote:

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.

Hinduism

Quote:

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self.

Islam

Quote:

Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.

Jainism

Quote:

Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.

Judaism

Quote:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.

Taoism

Quote:

The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

An even stronger argument is that this does not distinguish them from other religions that contain an ethic of reciprocity code. The "Golden Rule" is just not a Christian concept, it's a nearly universal concept present in almost any religion:

Nor would it distinguish the non-religious follower of Christ's ethical teachings from the non-religious follower of some non-religious manifestation of the those same teachings. The "golden rule," for instance, can be derived from Kant's teachings just as easily as from Christ's. Just because Jesus enunciated some widely held ethical maxims doesn't transform those who also hold those maxims into Christians.

0 Replies

I really don't get the argument about whether someone can be a Christian and not accept Christ's divinity. Personally, I think that's the only criteria for being a Christian, both logically and theologically.

I think a Christian can both logically and theologically reject the homophobia etc of some Bible passages without being a hypocrite, and that the only argument most could reasonably make is that they are sinning to a greater degree (if one accepts such passages). If someone believes a lot of Christ's teachings but does not believe in his divinity I'd find it theologically inconsistent with claims that they are a Christian. They might describe themselves that way colloquially, in a similar fashion to someone who subscribes to the teachings of a particular philosopher (e.g. Kantian), or someone who likes something a bit too much (e.g. Dead Head) but it's doesn't make much sense logically, and it has no basis theologically.

Despite the many differences about the laws and exactly what constitutes the God Christianity is united in its requirement to accept the divinity on some level.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I don't find your assertion that Christianity is a special case to be persuasive.

It's only a special case in that their own theology universally defines Christians with the requirement of the acceptance of Christ's divinity while those other religions do not.

I'm fine with someone calling themselves a Christian even if they don't believe that Christ was divine, but I'm fine with it in the same way that I am if a light brunette decides that she's "blond". But from a theological perspective, I don't think there's any way to even argue that this is not a necessary component because there's no significant sect of Christianity that does not have this requirement in their theology.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Should we be bound by your personal criterion? Because reference sources refute your personal belief:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.: Christian

Quote:

Christian

SYLLABICATION: Chris·tian

PRONUNCIATION: krschn

ADJECTIVE: 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

NOUN: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Emphasis mine.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

Liberal Christians have a certain interpretation on the nature of scripture and act accordingly. Folks here, yourself included, say they have a false interpretation and are therefore false Christians, hypocrites, delusional, or dishonest.

I am saying that anyone who picks out passage from the Bible and says “these are mistakes”...and takes other passages and says, “these represent divine revelation”...should be able to give a reasonable, logical argument for why the former are considered “mistakes” and why the latter are considered “divine revelation”...or the only reasonable conclusion is that this selection process is purely gratuitous...done just so that the individual can justify what he/she is looking to justify.

The only way logically (said, ironically) to get to the notion, “Jesus is the Christ”...is to use the so-called prophecy of the Old Testament. The only reason, among Christians, for the notion of “a Christ” is from the Old Testament. The New Testament merely asserts that “the Christ has come.”

Why do you think it reasonable for a supposed Christian to assert that all the material leading up to Jesus being the Christ...is divinely inspired (it has got to be thought of as divinely inspired or it doesn't work)...but the very same kind of material in Leviticus (an essential book in the tradition that introduces the material) is somehow suspect?

Why would you possibly fault anyone for questioning that kind of process...for suggesting that it may very well be hypocrisy, delusion, or duplicity?

Any reasonable person would bring those questions (accusations, if you will) into play in any situation except (for some people) in a religious context. Why is that off-bounds?

The fact that some supposed Christians use the Bible (the Old Testament, actually) as divinely inspired revelation to arrive at “Jesus is the Christ...Jesus is the Savior of Humankind” and then take a passage from the same god such as, “...homosexual conduct is an abomination”...to mean there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual conduct...

...has got to raise questions in your mind...unless you are brain dead.

The fact that you want to excuse this as the result of “Liberal Christians” doing the (very imaginative) interpretations...doesn't fly.

And quite honestly, I've never seen any decent reasons given by the people doing this for why they choose some material to be divinely inspired revelation...and other material to be absolutely worthless.

Quote:

You don't understand why they do that. I don't understand why they do that either. Self-righteousness in the extreme, I guess. I don't understand why folks do it to liberal interpretations either. Self-righteousness in the extreme, I guess. It's one thing to believe in something yourself. It's another to proclaim someone else as a hypocrite, dishonest, or delusional because they don't agree with you.

I am not proclaiming anybody as a hypocrite because they do not agree with me...I am proclaiming them hypocrites because they are acting in a hypocritical way.

Maybe if you just stop thinking of me as some kind of monster...that will finally sink in.

They are being hypocrites...that is why I am calling them hypocrites. Jesus, in fact, on several occasions called people hypocrites...not because they didn't agree with him, but because they were conducting themselves as hypocrites.

Yes, I am being judgmental. I try not to be...but in this case, you've got to factor in that I am of the strong opinion that religion is a net negative for humankind. It is an opinion...and I recognize that intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree. But it is how I feel...so I am acting accordingly.

1 Reply

RG claims that acceptance of the divinity of Christ is a universal requirement for being a Christian. He doesn't demonstrate that this is the case, he just says it. His argument is, therefore, exactly like Joe's. It is ipse dixit. It ignores, as Joe does, JWs and Socinianism.

It is no more convincing coming from RG than it is coming from Joe--which is to say, not at all.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Should we be bound by your personal criterion? Because reference sources refute your personal belief:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.: Christian

I did not say that that dictionaries define it that way, but rather that Christian theology did. And even if you define it as following the teachings of Jesus, that would necessarily require the belief in divinity, because that was part and parcel of Jesus' teachings.

This isn't my personal criterion, it's the foundation of Christian theology.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well, I'm not going to try to convince you. As with Frank, that's a particular wall I'd rather not bang my head against at the moment. But if you want references you can pretty much start with anything on Christian theology. They've agreed on precious little except for the basic concept of divinity (even if they can't always agree on the nature of the divinity).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_theology#Key_themes

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

This isn't my personal criterion, it's the foundation of Christian theology.

That's quite a broad claim. Do you have something to support this assertion other than you bare word?

Robert Gentel wrote:

if you define it as following the teachings of Jesus, that would necessarily require the belief in divinity, because that was part and parcel of Jesus' teachings.

Really? Jesus taught that he himself was divine? Other than in the gnostic sense?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

From your own link:

Quote:

Modern Christian theology

....

Another group sought to reconcile Christian faith with "Modern" ideas, sometimes causing them to reject beliefs they considered to be illogical, including the Nicene creed and Chalcedonian Creed. these included Unitarians and Universalists.

While belief in the divinity of Christ might be a common theme in many versions of Christianity, I see nothing that makes it a requirement.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

That's quite a broad claim. Do you have something to support this assertion other than you bare word?

It's in any significant Christian theology DrewDad. You can take any random source on basic Christian theology and find it. Here's a page from the results for "christian theology" in Google.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/ (see portions on the trinity)

Robert Gentel wrote:

Really? Jesus taught that he himself was divine? Other than in the gnostic sense?

Yes. Here's a sampler:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 8:23)

1 Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Quote:

Unitarianism as a theology is the belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one God).[1] It is the philosophy upon which the modern Unitarian movement was based, and, according to its proponents, is the original form of Christianity. Unitarian Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and hold him up as an exemplar. Adhering to strict monotheism, they maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself. Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus. Their theology is thus distinguishable from the theology of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, mainline Protestant, and other Christian denominations which hold the Trinity doctrine as a core belief.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 8:23)

The first is a slander. The second is not a claim of godhood.

Try again.

1 Reply

Lordy, lordy. This thread has slipped into pedantry.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

It's only a special case in that their own theology universally defines Christians with the requirement of the acceptance of Christ's divinity while those other religions do not. (emphasis added)

Quote:

This isn't my personal criterion, it's the foundation of Christian theology.

Quote:

But if you want references you can pretty much start with anything on Christian theology. They've agreed on precious little except for the basic concept of divinity (even if they can't always agree on the nature of the divinity).

I provide no links to these posts, although if RG wishes to dispute it, i can go get them.

I have one word in refutation of these claims: Socinianism. Now Joe's tactic when questioned about JWs or the Socinians is an argument from ignorance--he says he knows nothing about their beliefs, but he continues to insist upon his point of view. Will that be your tack?

I note that you have climbed down to a position based upon degrees of divinity of the putative Christ. You'll fall afoul there of an ultimate statement of the degree of divinity, which is to say, no divinity at all. Otherwise, you set yourself up as an authority so well versed in Christian theology that you are willing to speak of universality. I have no reason to assume that you are that well informed.

I'm no more inclined to butt my head up against your pigheadedness. But i see no more reason to accept your qualified and quibbling ipse dixit position, than to accept Joe's absolutist one. It is well that you are not going to try to convince me, because you have so far offered nothing convincing. Does it matter? I consider that it does, because it has become crucial to this squabble that people involved are intent on defining what is and what isn't a Christian point of view, and what Christians are or are not to be allowed to believe. I have already said that it is my sense of logic that those who subscribe to the alleged scriptural record of the teachings of the putative Christ must therefore accept the Pentateuch as the law, including all of the messy, unpleasant and "politically incorrect" attitudes toward adulterers, unruly children and male homosexuals (no mention is made of female homosexuals, that i recall).

But the issue does become crucial when one alleges that one has certain and unassailable knowledge of what is required to be a Christian. If one makes the assertion from a basis of knowing absolutely what constitutes theological purity in Christianity, then one is obliged at some point to make statements about what does or does not constitute heresy. The best reason which i can see for accepting dictionary definitions for Christianity is that i am not personally, willing to accept the burden of being the grand Inquisitor, and am therefore willing to accept that there are those who claim to be Christian based upon espousing or practicing the teachings of the putative Christ. They will have to deal themselves with the matter of Leviticus and other embarrassing aspects of the cult which may not be readily reconciled with their personal ethos. I cannot reasonable consider that i, or you or Joe, am in any position to dictate who is and who isn't a Christian.

1 Reply

I am sick of organized religion, and especially sick of the huge support given it by government. For instance, church contributions are deductible, and churches are essentially exempt from any tax. If the religious need the church, they should pay for it, and not pick my pocket. I don't believe in the supernatural.

In today's Charlotte Observer, there is a piece about the church being sued by a young man who was sexually abused by a priest. The victim alleges that the church knew of the abuse and looked the other way, and later covered up the crimes by transferring the priest to NJ.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

You should give some weight to the fact that the priest was transferred to New Jersey. That in itself is a harsh penalty.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Hey, hey, hey!!!!

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Quote:
Unitarianism as a theology is the belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one God).[1] It is the philosophy upon which the modern Unitarian movement was based, and, according to its proponents, is the original form of Christianity. Unitarian Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and hold him up as an exemplar. Adhering to strict monotheism, they maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself. Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus. Their theology is thus distinguishable from the theology of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, mainline Protestant, and other Christian denominations which hold the Trinity doctrine as a core belief.

I added the qualifier of significant for a reason. Unitarians theology isn't a significant Christian theology, and is more influential outside of Christianity than inside. As an example Unitarian Universalism developed from Christianity, but is distinct from it, and this Unitarian theology is just not part of any significant Christian denomination.

In my experience, Unitarian Christians still accept Jesus as a supernatural being, which is one of the definitions of divinity, while those that do not think he was supernatural at all tend to not define themselves as Unitarian Christians but subscribe to Unitarian Universalism.

So if you want to nail down the semantics, I'd modify my statement to say that if they believe in any supernatural aspect (even if they don't want to use the word "god" to describe him) to Jesus they are Christians. This is what I was talking about when I said divinity. If they just believe in the god they think Jesus believed in, and think Jesus was just a wise man then what separates their "Christianity" from, say, Judaism? Just that they call themselves Christian? I am an atheist and I can do that.

That's a question that often turns Unitarian Christians into Unitarian Universalists, and they often begin to believe that all the religions are speaking of the same god through the religion's respective wise men.

So if someone really doesn't believe that Christ was supernatural, I don't personally consider them to be Christian, and no significant Christian theology does. I don't, however, have any problem if they want to call themselves a Christian, I just don't think it's supported by significant theology. And the qualifier of "significant" is, well, significant.

0 Replies

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know