Are you religious?

[Lee_M]

On a related note, since its neasrly Easter I got a big glossy brochure through the door from my local church yesterday.

Had a look inside and it was gibberish.

I'm not talking about what religion is, or whether christians are right or not, but the whole brochure made no sense from either an English language perspective or in the definitions of what God is or isn't. Even if I believed in a supreme being I'd be hard pressed to understand what they were trying to say

 

[swee'pea99]

And if the proposition is that 'All Christians believe in God', then this is clearly false.

Well, no. The assumption that it's 'clearly false' means accepting 'this guy's definition of what 'being a Christian' means. He takes it to mean "consciously choosing to be an advocate of Jesus and his teachings." That's his take on it, and if you accept that, then sure, it's false. But the vast majority of people who call - and have called - themselves 'Christian' wouldn't. They regard Jesus Christ not merely as a man who had some fine ideas about how life should be lived, but as a divine being. They would probably respect, say, Gandhi, as a fine moral leader, but would view him as a man, and as the result of some vigorous activity involving Mr & Mrs Gandhi. Jesus, they would hold, is different. He was born of a virgin. And his father is not Mr Christ, but - in a fully literal sense - God. Now, if you choose to reject that and still call yourself a Christian, fine. But it's a distortion of the language, and doesn't alter the fact that by any generally accepted definition, it's innaccurate.

 

[MontyVeda]

No

but... the clue is in the name... and neither god, abraham, noah or moses are Christ. Christ is just one bloke... so why don't Christians just follow the words of Christ and sod the rest of the Bible?

 

[Davidc]

Did you win or lose and how much?

Won: £20 and the exam fee, and the privilege of the right to put Divinity Grade A at A level on my CV (which I've never done).

I came across an old school contemporary who had finished a Theology degree and was very proud of it. He seemed to think this was the greatest achievement of all time, that it was a greater achievement than a degree in any other subject etc. (He'd always been an annoying (insert b word) and he went on to be a priest). My response is not appropriate here, as you said there are young people around. One upshot was the bet, based on me suggesting that I'd have no problem passing any Divinity /Theology exam with a single reading of the text book. Easy availability meant it was the A level rather than all 3 years degree exams in one go.

I did only read the books once, during the 2 days before the exam. Having been to C of E schools and having been forced to go to Sunday School for years when younger did help a little. I now remember very little of it and don't value it at all.

 

[tadpole]

You've got it bang on the nail. You cannot call yourself a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew) without believing in God, irrelevant of how much flaky philosophy or theology you try to use to justify it.

Before you dig yourself a deeper hole Google Rev Klaas Hendrikse

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You cannot call yourself a Christian if you reject the fundamental teachings of Christ... simples! The clue is in the name.

In relation to the nature of God? What are they then?

EDIT: Yes sure you or I, and others in our tradition,may not regard this god-denier as a Christian. But they may. And so might lots of other folk.

 

[clarion]

Well, it's pretty clear that he is recorded as believing in a God.

 

[tadpole]

And? How is that relevant? If he doesn't believe in God then he's not a Christian.

Just because you do not think of him as a Christian, does not mean anything or have any bearing on the fact he is the pastor of a Christian church, and leads a congregation in worship. 'You' may call BMWs wankpanzers, but it does not make them so, nor does it mean that from now on everyone who drives one, thinks less of their car.

 

[perplexed]

I'm confused now.

If Christians (some of) don't believe in God, who are they kneeling to?

(Fnaar, step away from the keyboard now!)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Given that I'm at work, rather than at home where my books are easily to hand, but I'd go with John 4:21, John 5:16-41 and most of John 6.

The same Gospel of John that nontheist Friends and Atheist Christians read, and continue on their way as Christians without believing in God?
The same Gospel of John that Unitarian friends read, and continue on their way as Christians without believing in a Trinitarian God?
The same Gospel of John that Catholic/Orthodox friends read, and continue on their way as Christians, insisting that God is male?

The meaning of words/language is mutable over time. What a Christian was, and believed in, in the Apostolic age, in time times of the Fathers, pre-Constantine, post-Constantine, et cetera, is, most likely, different to what a Christian was, and believes in, now.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

It is irrelevant what one calls oneself. If I call a rock a car it doesn't mean that it is a car. Language and nomenclature do not exist in some philosophical vacuum

No, they are used to communicate ideas. As such their meanings are subject to intent, interpretation, debate and revision. Why does all your scholarly subtlety disappear when it comes to Christianity?

 

[clarion]

I really can't believe this thread is happening.

The very first words of the Nicene Creed (accepted by the vast majority of Christian churches worldwide, including, I believe, all churches extant at the time) are:

We believe one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...

The essence, therefore, of Christianity, as for any other theistic religion, is belief in a God.

What defines Christianity apart from the other Abrahamic religions, is the belief in Jesus the Christ as a human expression of the divine.

It's a bit weird to claim otherwise. And taking the definition of Christianity from some out there preachers who, for whatever reason, like to claim to be Christian while at the same time proclaiming atheism (thus negating the message of the Christ) is, as User says, like taking the definition of a car from someone describing a rock, rather than being able to define what a car is.

 

[Fnaar]

Probably not relevant to the way the arguments are develoiping, but I'm getting mighty fed up with the Beeb (and others) reporting how blimming humble the new pope and the archbish of canterwotsit are, and how they don;t really like all the pomp, ceremony and hullaballoo. If you don't like it, don't do it then, ffs. Say, "look, can we just do without the ceremony thing. Don't invite leaders from all round the world, don't spend loads of money on this inauguration, let's set an example here". Or if you're the pope, "respice, potest nos iustus facite sine ceremonia rei. Ductores undique noli vocare mundum, non pecuniae expendere summas super altare, sine exemplo est hic"

 

[Nihal]

 

[tadpole]

Probably not relevant to the way the arguments are develoiping, but I'm getting mighty fed up with the Beeb (and others) reporting how blimming humble the new pope and the archbish of canterwotsit are, and how they don;t really like all the pomp, ceremony and hullaballoo. If you don't like it, don't do it then, ffs. Say, "look, can we just do without the ceremony thing. Don't invite leaders from all round the world, don't spend loads of money on this inauguration, let's set an example here". Or if you're the pope, "respice, potest nos iustus facite sine ceremonia rei. Ductores undique noli vocare mundum, non pecuniae expendere summas super altare, sine exemplo est hic"

Illud iterum dicere potes!