Are you religious?

[Rev]

ooooh

 

[MacB]

[QUOTE 2372698, member: 45"]...when we were talking about the ability of an 8-year-old to have it all sorted. The books offering an opinion are irrelevant except to illustrate by the fact that you'd not have understood them at 8.[/quote]

If I may attempt to translate a little for David here to try and circumvent this circular style you so love, this is by no means an indication of my own views by the way:-

at age 8 he caught a strong whiff of BS and not only has the stench not abated in the intervening years it has gotten worse

I don't think we need to go through his entire life year by year measuring the level of smell he detected compared to the development of his nasal sensory apparatus.

Put another way we got the gist of what he meant first time round and I don't think anyone really thought he had some sort of mature atheistic outlook parachuted into his brain at age 8.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Whatever's happening around the margins, surely the overwhelming majority of people who profess themselves to be Christians believe in God and all the Jesus being his son stuff in the traditional way, even if they're a bit wooly about some of the details.

Traditions, they evolve don't they? Understanding Jesus being God's son is open to a whole range of interpretation. And has been the subject of serious disagreement over the years. How was He born? What does His birth mean? Was his Holy Mother a virgin? Was she conceived without sin herself, did she remain a virgin for the rest of her life? If so why is that significant? et cetera

Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what the wording of the creed is, and let alone what the words of the creed actually mean.

 

[MacB]

[QUOTE 2372987, member: 45"]I'd understand if that's what he said.[/quote]

that was my take on it but I'll leave it up to David to confirm, deny or clarify

 

[clarion]

Traditions, they evolve don't they? Understanding Jesus being God's son is open to a whole range of interpretation. And has been the subject of serious disagreement over the years. How was He born? What does His birth mean? Was his Holy Mother a virgin? Was she conceived without sin herself, did she remain a virgin for the rest of her life? If so why is that significant? et cetera

Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what the wording of the creed is, and let alone what the words of the creed actually mean.

Thing is, Greg, they did agree the wording of the Creed, even if that has diverged a bit of late. But the essence is always the same, isn't it, except for a few cranks?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Thinking about all this during my swim, I was reminded of my old friend Mary, who described herself as 'a vegetarian...though I do eat salami and the occasional bacon sarnie'. I always said no, sorry. A vegetarian is someone who eats no meat, full stop.If you eat salami and the occasional bacon sarnie, you aren't a vegetarian. Close but no cigar. That's what the word actually means.

'Christian' is similar. Sure, language changes over time; but only up to a point. And if someone referred me to Rev Willy Wonka's www.meateatingvegetarian.com, I wouldn't take it as proof that you can eat meat and still be a vegetarian, just that you don't need any great command of the language to start up a website. Similarly, 'Atheist Christian' is not a linguistic innovation; it's a contradiction in terms.

What does Christian mean? What specific beliefs precisely determine that one is a Christian? Are they precisely the same beliefs now as they were in CE35, CE50, CE350, CE1350, et cetera?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Thing is, Greg, they did agree the wording of the Creed, even if that has diverged a bit of late. But the essence is always the same, isn't it, except for a few cranks?

First off which creed?Why did they agree it, and why are there so many of them?
Second off... Of late? Of late you say? 1054 is, I believe, the date of the Great Schism. A thousand years ago the Western Church came up with filioque and the rest as they say is history.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2372707, member: 45"]That's all fine, and a long way of saying the thing about lamb sausages, but it becomes a bit woolly around the inspection of the word "Christian", which in itself has some unavoidable definition.[/quote]
Now here's the thing. I'm a Roman Catholic. To me that is pretty mainstream Christian. Yet I've met plenty of other Christians around the world, and locally, of chiefly a Protestant Evangelical bent, some of them ministers, who have told me, in all seriousness and sincerity, that I am NOT a Christian.

So who decides who is and who isn't, and what is this definition that is so unavoidable?

 

[Rev]

they did agree the wording of the Creed

few problems there 1) They DID agree (past) 2) They were rather lax in defining certain theological terms 3) Lots of sub-sects where positively discouraged or forced to concede much in the hope of surviving there much more powerful co-religionists.

The few cranks who put their heads above the parapet or the many cranks who hid within heterodox institutions?

 

[Rev]

So who decides who is and who isn't, and what is this definition that is so unavoidable?

give that man a cigar!

 

[clarion]

few problems there 1) They DID agree (past) 2) They were rather lax in defining certain theological terms 3) Lots of sub-sects where positively discouraged or forced to concede much in the hope of surviving there much more powerful co-religionists.

The few cranks who put their heads above the parapet or the many cranks who hid within heterodox institutions?

Yes, they were a bit lax in defining terms, but the word 'God' comes into it an awful lot.

 

[Rev]

This great question of who decides who is and who is not of the faithful is alarmingly familiar in most faith communities including Buddhism sadly.
Of which some are also Deists!

 

[Minotier]

I believe in Carl Sagan.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I used to deal with some over the internet. It was monk e-business.

 

[Rev]

Yes, they were a bit lax in defining terms, but the word 'God' comes into it an awful lot.

That's maybe one of the biggest problems. One would have to define God before one could decide if one was a believer or not. For two or more to share a belief they would have to have a mutually acceptable definition.
Without the definition they could believe in extremely disparate entities, deities , metaphors, archetypes or myths. The parameters of their beliefs maybe mutually exclusive yet because the notion of God (without definition) has been included in their faith they are judged to believe the same notion.
This makes no logical sense.