Aetheists know more about religion

@kuvasz,

I do not believe Jesus underwent physical resurrection.... and that is what makes one a Christian.
---------------------------------------
You can be a Christian without believing Jesus underwent a physical resurrection. Part of being a Christian is your doubts, your thoughts and feelings.
This is an answer to the question that a Swedish Lutheran priest gave and as you can see it perfectly all right to have doubts:
Think about the question. What makes that the resurrection is so difficult to believe. Is it too fantastic?Too utopean? Too much of mysticism? A great part of believing is plain mysticism. Believing cannot be explained completely in rational terms. Believing is just believing and not a sience.

1 Reply

@saab,

Quote:

You can be a Christian without believing Jesus underwent a physical resurrection.

No, you can not.

That is precisely what the Nicene Creed is about. The Nicene Creed is the only creed accepted by all three major branches of Christianity: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. It was adopted by a general Council of the entire Church (Ecumenical) in 325 A.D., and revised by a general council of the entire Church in 381 A.D.

The Nicene Creed is the creed or profession of faith that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea by the first ecumenical council, which met there in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed has been normative to the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic Eucharistic rite as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox liturgies.

The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines.

Quote:

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God; Begotten, not made. Being of One Substance with the Father; by Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. And was Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and Ascended into Heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father: And He shall come again, with Glory to Judge both the living and the dead; His Kingdom shall have no end.

I BELIEVE in the Holy Spirit; The Lord, and Giver of Life; Who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is Worshipped and glorified; Who spoke through the Prophets.

I BELIEVE in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: and the Life of the world to come. Amen.

You are free to call yourself whatever you want, but referring to yourself as a Christian without accepting the Resurrection will not cut it with any Christian I know.

2 Replies

@kuvasz,

Sure, you can.

Liberal Christians see the bible and the resurrection as allegory

wiki

Quote:

Some liberal Christians do not accept a literal bodily resurrection,[44][45] seeing the story as richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Arguments over death and resurrection claims occur at many religious debates and interfaith dialogues.[46] Paul the Apostle, an early Christian convert and missionary, wrote, "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless."[1 Cor. 15:14] [47]

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

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

You become a member of a Christian denomination when you are baptized by a Christian Priest/pastor.
Usually small children are baptized and become members of their congregation and are considered Christians.
There is no law about how you believe.
As your baptism cannot be unmade you in reality remain a Christian even though you say your are an atheist. You can leave the church, but you still remain a Christian.
If you stay loyal to your church as a member and contribute with money, but never set foot in a church you are still a Christian.
Glad I grew up in a church with certain tolerance

1 Reply

The sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine. Whether that means that Christ was god or the son of god or co-god or something else doesn't much matter as long as Christ partook of some aspect of divinity.

5 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Up till year 2000 every baby born by Swedish citizens got to be a Swede and member of the church and registred as a member of the church and as a Christian.
Most parents baptized their children to confirm this.
As long as you did not leave the church you were a member and as a member you paid your churchtaxes.
Now you become a member by being baptized. Nobody can throw you out of the church no matter what you think. Nobody takes away your citizenship no matter how you critize your government.
As long as you do not convert to another religion you remain a Christian through your baptism even if you leave the church.
That is the practical side of it. then comes the feelings and your believes which makes you feel like a Christian or not.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Suppose it's all PR Joe designed to make the important stuff stick good like concrete because if it doesn't there's a menagerie ruled by force combined with intelligence which goes down in ruins.

Questioning the PR does not touch the important stuff. The doubts about the one don't translate into doubts about the other. You can make mistakes in selling a product but if the product is good enough it will make its own way and Christianity has done that. If its time is up there had better be some other way of making the important stuff stick.

The atheist needs to say it wasn't important stuff at all and it was got up by a bunch of wizards to **** you all over and fill their own bellies or, if he accepts that it is, to find a better way of making it stick.

There's a big argument on both of those subjects. Which sort of atheist are you? One that says it wasn't important stuff or the other?

I think we can safely say that making the important stuff stick has been a fundamental aspect of our western culture.

So you are right in what you say. It makes no difference really. The Divine connection is the only thing that matters. For the chutzpah. Mankind does not trust earthly authority.

0 Replies

@saab,

I doubt that anyone would argue that membership in the Swedish Lutheran Church is a prerequisite to calling oneself a Christian. More to the point, if the category "Christian" is to have any meaning at all, it must have some relationship to one's adherence to religious doctrine. Being enrolled in a congregation is, I would argue, insufficient in itself to qualify someone as a Christian.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine. Whether that means that Christ was god or the son of god or co-god or something else doesn't much matter as long as Christ partook of some aspect of divinity.

You don't have to imagine it. That doesn't mean that someone else can't.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Again, bully for you, but your definition of what is sufficient doesn't apply to anyone else any more than Arella Mae's.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Religious Tolerance's definition of Christian

Quote:

To avoid confusion, we repeat here our site's simple definition of "Christian:"

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be. "

Other individuals and groups have much narrower definitions of the term. They often believe that their faith group is the "true" Christian religion, and that others are in error. That is certainly their right, but it does cause a great deal of confusion, frustration, anger, and conflict. link

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ.

I don't know that this is true. It certainly isn't a sine qua non by Webster's definition, intended to describe the common usage of the word Christian: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". (Webster has more definitions, but this is the relevant one.) This would appear to leave room for people who believe in Jesus's teachings as Buddhists believe in Buddha's. Buddhists don't believe that Buddha was divine, but do consider his teachings supremely wise philosophy. In that sense, they "believe in them". I don't see why people wouldn't deserve the name Christians when they, in the same sense, "believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ". Apparently, Mr. Webster agrees.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Again, bully for you, but your definition of what is sufficient doesn't apply to anyone else any more than Arella Mae's.

My definition is to be taken on its own merits. It is, therefore, as good or as bad as it is. I don't claim to be an authority, but I do consider that my definition is a whole lot better than simply saying "anyone is a Christian who claims to be a Christian." That, I contend, is quite possibly the worst definition of "Christian" that one could come up with.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I don't know that this is true. It certainly isn't a sine qua non by Webster's definition, intended to describe the common usage of the word Christian: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". (Webster has more definitions, but this is the relevant one.)

And the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary are theological experts because ...?

Thomas wrote:

This would appear to leave room for people who believe in Jesus's teachings as Buddhists believe in Buddha's. Buddhists don't believe that Buddha was divine, but do consider his teachings supremely wise philosophy. I don't see why people who believe in Jesus Christ's teachings in the same sense wouldn't deserve the name Christians. And apparently, Mr. Webster agrees.

Buddhists don't believe that the Buddha was divine because there's no theological justification for such a belief. The Buddha, after all, wasn't going around with a bunch of disciples saying (or at least strongly hinting) that he was the son of god, nor did he have subsequent interpreters of his teachings authoritatively declare that he was not just the son of god, but god himself (or at least one aspect of a triune god). Indeed, someone who thinks that the Buddha was divine shouldn't be considered a Buddhist, just as someone who thinks that Jesus wasn't divine shouldn't be considered a Christian. After all, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet, albeit not divine. Does that make them Christians?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

And the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary are theological experts because ...?

They aren't, and they don't have to be. After all, none of us is a theologian, and the nature of our conversation isn't theological. All we are is speakers of American English, discussing current affairs. Therefore, the only expertise we need is on how words are commonly used in American English. The editors of Webster possess it by virtue of being linguists. Hence, their authority is perfectly adequate for our purposes.

joefromchicago wrote:

After all, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet, albeit not divine. Does that make them Christians?

I see no logical reason why not. All I see is reasons of convention and religious politics. Are Christians "Jesaiaists" because they believe Jesaia was a prophet? I suppose they are if you want to be all logical about it. Nevertheless, we don't conventionally call them that. Same deal about Muslims being Christians.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

They aren't, and they don't have to be. After all, none of us is a theologian, and the nature of our conversation isn't theological.

I'm not entirely sure how a discussion regarding the limits of Christianity can be anything but theological in nature. In any event, if you agree with the editors of the M-W dictionary that a "Christian" is anyone who follows Christ's teachings, perhaps you can explain which of those teachings are non-religious -- that way we can have a theology-free discussion of what it means to be a "Christian."

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
After all, Muslims think that Jesus was a prophet, albeit not divine. Does that make them Christians?

I see no logical reason why not. All I see is reasons of convention and religious politics, neither of which need concern us here.

The editors of the M-W dictionary would take issue with that.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how a discussion regarding the limits of Christianity can be anything but theological in nature. In any event, if you agree with the editors of the M-W dictionary that a "Christian" is anyone who follows Christ's teachings, perhaps you can explain which of those teachings are non-religious -- that way we can have a theology-free discussion of what it means to be a "Christian."

I don't care. I have no interest in a theology-free discussion about what it means to be a "Christian"---or about a theology-ridden discussion about it, for that matter. I only care about using words as they are commonly understood. And in order to do that, I don't have to distinguish between theological and any atheological teachings of Jesus.

joefromchicago wrote:

The editors of the M-W dictionary would take issue with that.

I don't see what evidence your link provides for that. A Muslim is "an adherent of Islam". Belief in (most of) the teachings of Christ is part of Islam. From a strictly logical perspective, then---though not from the perspective of convention---Muslims are Christians in the same sense that physicists are scientists.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

And in order to do that, I don't have to distinguish between theological and any atheological teachings of Jesus.

Well in that case Thomas should continue his discussions with others who don't feel the need to distinguish between the theological and any atheological teachings of Jesus. In order to do that it is, of course, necessary to not know what "theological" means and then it becomes absurd to use the word twice in the same sentence.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I don't care. I have no interest in a theology-free discussion about what it means to be a "Christian"---or about a theology-ridden discussion about it, for that matter. I only care about using words as they are commonly understood. And in order to do that, I don't have to distinguish between theological and any atheological teachings of Jesus.

I see. So you say that a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, but as for what those teachings are, you don't have a clue and you're not interested. So whether it's Jesus's teaching on the commandments or his tips for a great wedding reception, as long as they're teachings, it doesn't matter what they are.

That's fine. I'm rather surprised that you'd be satisfied with the kind of argument that I'd expect from someone like ican -- complete with authoritative reference to the M-W dictionary -- but if that's what you're willing to settle for, that's OK with me. You're still wrong, of course, but then you should be used to that by now.

Thomas wrote:

I don't see what evidence your link provides for that. A Muslim is "an adherent of Islam". Belief in (most of) the teachings of Christ is part of Islam. From a strictly logical perspective, then---though not from the perspective of convention---Muslims are Christians in the same sense that physicists are scientists.

Well, there are some pretty significant teachings of Jesus that Muslims don't buy at all, like all that stuff about him being the son of god. But if all of Jesus's teachings are fungible, so that one is just the same as the next, then I suppose you could say that all that son-of-god business should be of little concern to Muslims.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, there are some pretty significant teachings of Jesus that Muslims don't buy at all, like all that stuff about him being the son of god.

So what? Nobody buys all teachings of Jesus Christ. That would be logically impossible, seeing that some of them contradict each other. "Being a Christian", then, has to be a matter of degree. Some people are more Christian than others. I will admit that Islam, as reflected in the Quran, doesn't endorse all of Jesus's teachings either. But it's still pretty darn Christian.

By the way: That Jesus's divinity is among the teachings Islam isn't buying doesn't concern me much. And why should it? I'm not the one claiming that believing in Jesus's divinity is essential to being a Christian.

1 Reply

Aetheists know more about religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know