Your self-identification can be wrong.

[The Bith Shuffle]

Suppose I believed that I was Carl Sagan. Would I be entitled to my opinion? No--there was a Carl Sagan, and I am not that Carl Sagan. If I believed that I was Carl Sagan, I would be wrong. End of story.

Now, supposed that I believed that I wasn't an English major. Am I entitled to that opinion? I have 175 credits at the University of Washington, where I'm registered as an English major. In fact, you can look up my name in the UW directory and it says I'm an English major. So, if I believed I was not an English major, I'd simply be wrong.

---

So what's my goddamn point? My point is this: I think a lot of people pointlessly self-identify with groups that they don't belong to. I'll give you a couple examples.

- Someone I knew, in our political discussions, would repeatedly deny that he was conservative. At the time he supported George W. Bush, supported the Iraq War, thought that stopping political Islam was the most important task for the United States, strongly supported Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict, thought that Global Warming was a liberal hoax, thought that the environment should not be given much respect, thought that Muslims were a scourge in modern Europe, supported the free market, etc. In other words, this person was wrong when he claimed that he was not conservative. If there is such a thing as conservatism, he was a conservative.

- Some "Christians" do not believe that Christ was the son of God. Guess what? That makes you a non-Christian. Christians believe that Jesus was sent to Earth by God to forgive their sins. Believing that Christ was wise does not make you Christian any more than admiring Hermione makes you believe in witchcraft.

This happens a lot in many places. My point is this: if you fit the membership criteria of a group, don't deny that you're part of that group. If you support the free market, the war in Iraq, Proposition 8, prayer in schools, etc, you're conservative. Deal with it. If you think that the Qu'ran should be taken metaphorically, you're not a Muslim. If you think that the government should own several major industries, you're not a capitalist. It's okay to be part of a certain group, even if that group is often detested.

[Cort]

Yes! Fuckin' right. Great OP.

[Hamlet]

I'm with Bith Shuffle!!!








Or am I?

Dum Dum Duuuuuuuuuummmmm.

[AClockworkMelon]

- Some "Christians" do not believe that Christ was the son of God. Guess what? That makes you a non-Christian. Christians believe that Jesus was sent to Earth by God to forgive their sins. Believing that Christ was wise does not make you Christian any more than admiring Hermione makes you believe in witchcraft.I think I'm going to regret asking this...

... but there are 'Christians' who think this?

[Nametag]

Hate to tell you this, but those people are right. None of those "conservative" shibboleths of yours is actually conservative in any defining way -- there are deeply conservative Americans who regard all of them with dismay (well, not the free market, unless you mean "free trade"), not to mention conservatives in other countries, who have entirely different criteria from American conservatives. And that's ignoring the existence of personal conservatism, the simple desire to see life stop changing.

Contrariwise, I believe I can find someone who believes all of them, who is solidly liberal in most respects.

As for Christians, what else do you call a follower of Christ? Just because someone prefers his own perception of God's truth over Paul's does not mean he's "not a Christian" -- not a mainstream Christian, I'll give you that, and I agree that other Christians would not accept him into the fold -- and there are good reasons to believe that Jesus himself did not believe he was the Son of God.

For that matter, there's reason to believe you're not an English major -- sure, you're registered as one, but do you actually intend to graduate with a degree in English? You've accumulated 175 units and still haven't done so. Perhaps you're actually spending most of your time studying other things, and plan to drop out when you've had enough.

I'm with you on the Carl Sagan part, though. I don't believe in reincarnation, so I don't believe you're that guy.

The point here, I think, is that you're insisting that things commonly -- or worse, currently -- associated with a given word define that word, and they don't.

[Cort]

Hate to tell you this, but those people are right. None of those "conservative" shibboleths of yours is actually conservative in any defining way -- there are deeply conservative Americans who regard all of them with dismay (well, not the free market, unless you mean "free trade"), not to mention conservatives in other countries, who have entirely different criteria from American conservatives. And that's ignoring the existence of personal conservatism, the simple desire to see life stop changing.


I agree that the positions Bith Shuffle mentioned are not, taken alone or together, entirely sufficient to infallibly categorise someone as a conservative, but I feel you're missing his larger point: Somewhere, there has to be a cut off. A label like 'conservative' or 'democrat' entails adherence to certain beliefs. At some point, if a person refuses to adhere to enough of them they should lose the moral right to self-identify with that label. Just because it's difficult to pinpoint where this cut off should be doesn't necessary invalidate this principle.

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?

[Skald the Rhymer]

I think I'm going to regret asking this...

... but there are 'Christians' who think this?

It's more that they disagree as to what Son of God means. It needn't imply a Virgin Birth or Joseph being a willing cuckold of the divine, no matter what Pat Robertson says.

[John Mace]

Those people claiming to be Carl Sagan are clearly wrong.

I'm Carl Sagan, dammit! And I'm a conservative Christian, too! But I'm not a capitalist.

[Ludovic]

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?Democrats have a better track record in the past 20 years of deficit reduction than Republicans, or at least don't increase the deficit as much. And there's no law that prevents him from calling himself a Democrat even believing all of this, and if he wanted to join that party I doubt they'd kick him out unless he became notorious. Then again, I wouldn't believe he was a Democrat even if he told me he was unless he showed me his party membership card, but if he did, he wouldn't just call himself a Democrat, he'd be a Democrat.

A conservative Democrat. It's true that almost everything on your list is undoubtably conservative, it just so happens that in the past 2 decades, Democrats have been more conservative in the area of the deficit than the Republicans.

[Onomatopoeia]

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?I know people like this right now. I work with them. They insist they're not conservatives even though they're walking, talking conservative billboards. The challenge for them, I suppose, is we're in an industry, medical research, although I'm personally on the compliance end, where those who possess the characteristics and mindset you described are, generally, thought of as somewhat less intelligent and less than open-minded. So, although I understand the reason for the denial, it's disproved with very little effort, like a totally blind person insisting he can see, making the denier look somewhat ridiculous.

[AqualungBats5th]

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?

He'd just be a Blue Dog Dem. Anyway, if he's a registered Democrat, then it doesn't much matter what he believes. Party affiliation doesn't necessarily tell you anything more about a person than how they're likely to vote.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Huh. I thought this was going to be a thread about transgendered people.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Let me get this straight, Bith. You are saying that if someone claims to be X, but doesn't fit with your narrow definition of X, then they are not X.

Do you realize how stupid and self centered that is?

[Clothahump]

So what's my goddamn point? My point is this: I think a lot of people pointlessly self-identify with groups that they don't belong to. I'll give you a couple examples.

- Someone I knew, in our political discussions, would repeatedly deny that he was conservative. At the time he supported George W. Bush...

Well, Bush wasn't a conservative, either, so I guess he was right.

[Reno Nevada]

SOME groups have a gate-keeper of one sort or another. The Democratic Party has a certain amount of this, as in some states you can register as a Democratic Party member. "Liberal" does not have any such gate-keeper or registration method.

"Christian" USED TO have a gate-keeper, at least in Europe, that being the Pope. If the Pope said you were Christian, there you go; otherwise, burn 'im. However, he lost that power some time ago, and never had it in Greece and points East, anyway. Nowadays, there is no gate-keeper, and anyone who claims to be Christian is just as much Christian as the Pope is.

So, yes, some groups have entry requirements, and if you don't meet them you are not a member; other groups are self-identified, and Bith Shuffle can just suck it.

[Indistinguishable]

Plenty of Christians aren't Biblical literalists. Why can't Muslims believe the Qur'an is at times metaphorical?

[Telcontar]

SOME groups have a gate-keeper of one sort or another. The Democratic Party has a certain amount of this, as in some states you can register as a Democratic Party member. "Liberal" does not have any such gate-keeper or registration method.

"Christian" USED TO have a gate-keeper, at least in Europe, that being the Pope. If the Pope said you were Christian, there you go; otherwise, burn 'im. However, he lost that power some time ago, and never had it in Greece and points East, anyway. Nowadays, there is no gate-keeper, and anyone who claims to be Christian is just as much Christian as the Pope is.

So, yes, some groups have entry requirements, and if you don't meet them you are not a member; other groups are self-identified, and Bith Shuffle can just suck it.

Largely agree. And even among groups where there are core issues, ambiguous cases arise. If one is a registered Democrat but has voted Republican for 10 years, are you a Democrat or Republican?

Now self identification can go too far. If someone has a single African American ancestor 4 generations back, I'd be hard pressed to take them seriously if they claimed to be African American. But even in that case they wouldn't be definitively "wrong," just stretching a definition further than I personally consider sensible.

As for defining Christianity...good luck with that. Take a look at the Marcion heresy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope . Would you want to rule on whether that was Christian? :P He follows Christ! Of course, it isn't exactly monotheistic...

[Jester]

I'm Carl Sagan and my wife is, too!

And both of us agree with Reno Nevada and Telcontar. Surprisingly few groups or identifiers in this world are categorical. For the others, drawing lines in the sands just winds up being semantic masturbation.

[Cisco]

- Some "Christians" do not believe that Christ was the son of God. Guess what? That makes you a non-Christian. Christians believe that Jesus was sent to Earth by God to forgive their sins. Believing that Christ was wise does not make you Christian any more than admiring Hermione makes you believe in witchcraft.

You're extremely wrong about this one. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. You don't have to believe he was literally a superhero anymore than you have to literally believe that all the trees of the field will clap their hands (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55%3A12&version=NIV) if you believe in him. If anyone is not a Christian (though far be it from me to judge), it is that vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" who ignore the moral teachings of Jesus in favor of a comic book interpretation of the bible, complete with miracles and resurrection and many other flavors of fancy. Christianity, right up to the very words of Jesus himself IMO, has been hijacked by believers in supernatural bunkum who have utterly and completely missed the point.

[Tethered Kite]

I believe in our current cultural atmosphere in the West it is considered appropriate for an individual, short of mental illness delusions, to define himself as he wishes.

Oddly enough for the OP this rose out of liberal thought.

[Starving Artist]

Hate to tell you this, but those people are right. None of those "conservative" shibboleths of yours is actually conservative in any defining way -- there are deeply conservative Americans who regard all of them with dismay (well, not the free market, unless you mean "free trade"), not to mention conservatives in other countries, who have entirely different criteria from American conservatives. And that's ignoring the existence of personal conservatism, the simple desire to see life stop changing.

Contrariwise, I believe I can find someone who believes all of them, who is solidly liberal in most respects.

As for Christians, what else do you call a follower of Christ? Just because someone prefers his own perception of God's truth over Paul's does not mean he's "not a Christian" -- not a mainstream Christian, I'll give you that, and I agree that other Christians would not accept him into the fold -- and there are good reasons to believe that Jesus himself did not believe he was the Son of God.

For that matter, there's reason to believe you're not an English major -- sure, you're registered as one, but do you actually intend to graduate with a degree in English? You've accumulated 175 units and still haven't done so. Perhaps you're actually spending most of your time studying other things, and plan to drop out when you've had enough.

I'm with you on the Carl Sagan part, though. I don't believe in reincarnation, so I don't believe you're that guy.

The point here, I think, is that you're insisting that things commonly -- or worse, currently -- associated with a given word define that word, and they don't.Good post, but I disagree with your assertion that conservatives simply want to see life stop changing. Conservatives are not opposed to change at all (you don't hear too many conservatives railing against the scourge of HDTV for example). What conservatives are opposed to is change that is viewed as negative or harmful, or which is born of good intent but creates more and worse problems than it solves.

[Arcite]

You're extremely wrong about this one. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. You don't have to believe he was literally a superhero anymore than you have to literally believe that all the trees of the field will clap their hands (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55%3A12&version=NIV) if you believe in him. If anyone is not a Christian (though far be it from me to judge), it is that vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" who ignore the moral teachings of Jesus in favor of a comic book interpretation of the bible, complete with miracles and resurrection and many other flavors of fancy. Christianity, right up to the very words of Jesus himself IMO, has been hijacked by believers in supernatural bunkum who have utterly and completely missed the point.

The problem is that if this is true, some of the biggest believers in supernatural bunkum were the apostles, the authors of the New Testament, and the early Christians.

There just doesn't seem to be much of a point in saying, "I personally think this Jesus guy only intended to start a movement of humanistic ethics, even though the only source of information we have about him, i.e. the Gospels, say that he performed miracles and was resurrected, and then his disciples went around teaching that he was the Son of God and that through his death and resurrection he somehow made atonement for the sins of men and that people can go to heaven and avoid hell by worshipping him." Whatever one might want it to be, the religion conventionally known as Christianity has not been about following the teachings of Christ; it's been about following the entire New Testament. I mean, I suppose one is free to found a new religion based only on the Jefferson Bible, but to avoid confusion, one should call it something other than "Christianity," since by now that name is pretty well claimed by that other religion which believes in miracles, resurrection, substitutionary atonement, heaven and hell, etc.

You can be a liberal atheist and be OK with this. Christopher Hitchens (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/even-atheist-knows-better.html) is:

Maryiln Sewell: "The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"

Christopher Hitchens: "I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."

[Merijeek]

Well, Bush wasn't a conservative, either, so I guess he was right.

And those who disagree with the OP are those who inflict the lack of true Scots on the world...

-Joe

[Cisco]

There just doesn't seem to be much of a point in saying, "I personally think this Jesus guy only intended to start a movement of humanistic ethics, even though the only source of information we have about him, i.e. the Gospels, say that he performed miracles and was resurrected, and then his disciples went around teaching that he was the Son of God and that through his death and resurrection he somehow made atonement for the sins of men and that people can go to heaven and avoid hell by worshipping him."
Doesn't seem to be much of a point except that it makes about a million times more sense.

Christian: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian)
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

[Little Nemo]

I think there is an element of social consensus involved in group identity. You can't just claim that you have personal definitions of what terms like conservative or Christian mean and your definitions are just as valid as the definitions used by society in general. That's taking relativism a little overboard.

Suppose I believe I am the Pope. There's a guy in Rome named Joe Ratzinger who also believes he is the Pope. But his belief that he is the Pope is reinforced by the belief of several billion other people who also believe he is the Pope. To pretend our two beliefs are equally valid is ridiculous.

[Cisco]

I think there is an element of social consensus involved in group identity. You can't just claim that you have personal definitions of what terms like conservative or Christian mean and your definitions are just as valid as the definitions used by society in general. That's taking relativism a little overboard.

Suppose I believe I am the Pope. There's a guy in Rome named Joe Ratzinger who also believes he is the Pope. But his belief that he is the Pope is reinforced by the belief of several billion other people who also believe he is the Pope. To pretend our two beliefs are equally valid is ridiculous.

Your second paragraph does not follow your first.

[Bosstone]

Your second paragraph does not follow your first.Why? He talks about social consensus, then illustrates the validity of social consensus.

[Tethered Kite]

I think there is an element of social consensus involved in group identity. You can't just claim that you have personal definitions of what terms like conservative or Christian mean and your definitions are just as valid as the definitions used by society in general. That's taking relativism a little overboard.

Suppose I believe I am the Pope. There's a guy in Rome named Joe Ratzinger who also believes he is the Pope. But his belief that he is the Pope is reinforced by the belief of several billion other people who also believe he is the Pope. To pretend our two beliefs are equally valid is ridiculous.

This makes sense to me. When I thought of the question I was thinking more in personal terms. If I say that I am a Christian I am talking about how I relate to the world, among other things. My business, even though it's fair for others to judge how good of a job I am doing living up to my claim.

But if I say I am the ruler of the Christian Catholic Church, that's where the opinions of others would carry more weight.

[MOIDALIZE]

Hi, I'm Taylor Lautner.

[Cisco]

Why? He talks about social consensus, then illustrates the validity of social consensus.
The first paragraph is about self-identification as part of a subjective, loosely-defined, wildly variable group.

The second is about identity theft.

[Bosstone]

The first paragraph is about self-identification as part of a subjective, loosely-defined, wildly variable group.

The second is about identity theft.Oh, you're witty.

[Cort]

hi, i'm taylor lautner.


LEARN TO ACT!!
o

[Rand Rover]

I think the OP is glossing over the two different types of groups (or group membership)--(i) groups that one is a member of whether or not they want to be and (ii) groups that someone must affirmatively do something to be a member of. And the same word can be used to describe both types of groups.

Take "Christian." It can mean someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and everything else (or enough other things) in the Bible (a type 1 group). It can also mean someone who goes to church and says that they are a Christian (a type 2 group). So, you are kind of mixing things up when you call someone a Christian and they say they aren't--you can both be right.

The term "conservative" is a little more slippery. I take the word all by itself to be rather meaningless (outside of other context clues)--it's better to separate it out into fiscal conservative and social conservative, and both of those are type 1 groups. However, I can understand someone taking the term "conservative" to mean "Republican," which is a type 2 group.

[Guinastasia]

I think there is an element of social consensus involved in group identity. You can't just claim that you have personal definitions of what terms like conservative or Christian mean and your definitions are just as valid as the definitions used by society in general. That's taking relativism a little overboard.

Suppose I believe I am the Pope. There's a guy in Rome named Joe Ratzinger who also believes he is the Pope. But his belief that he is the Pope is reinforced by the belief of several billion other people who also believe he is the Pope. To pretend our two beliefs are equally valid is ridiculous.


Well, if you want to be A Pope, I guess you could start your own church and call yourself the Pope of that church. Would that count? ;)

[Enuma Elish]

Only if you make your own cleansing bar, mold it to resemble a certain ex-German bishop, attach it to a lanyard, and call it

Pope on a Rope!

[Dallas Jones]

I think the OP is glossing over the two different types of groups (or group membership)--(i) groups that one is a member of whether or not they want to be and (ii) groups that someone must affirmatively do something to be a member of. And the same word can be used to describe both types of groups.

Take "Christian." It can mean someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and everything else (or enough other things) in the Bible (a type 1 group). It can also mean someone who goes to church and says that they are a Christian (a type 2 group). So, you are kind of mixing things up when you call someone a Christian and they say they aren't--you can both be right.

The term "conservative" is a little more slippery. I take the word all by itself to be rather meaningless (outside of other context clues)--it's better to separate it out into fiscal conservative and social conservative, and both of those are type 1 groups. However, I can understand someone taking the term "conservative" to mean "Republican," which is a type 2 group.

Yes, this post is actually quite clear. Being a Democrat, or Rebublican, means that you have registered as a member of an actual organization. You are officially a member. You have joined an organization. No one requires adherance to the group philosophy, but you are a member. Independants have no such official organization.

Now I generally tend toward conservative, but I am often registered as a Democrat because I live in a mostly Democrat run state. Sometimes I want to vote in the Democrat primary elections because those elections will actually pick who the final candidate, and possible victor, will be. The Republican candidates usually haven't a chance in hell of winning so voting in the GOP primary has little influence.

It is also quite possible, and often the case, that someone can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal at the same time. These values are not in conflict with each other.

[Cisco]

Oh, you're witty.
It wasn't a joke.

By Little Nemo's standards, a transsexual could not identify by his or her own gender, because the vast majority of people think that they are just delusional perverts.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

It wasn't a joke.

By Little Nemo's standards, a transsexual could not identify by his or her own gender, because the vast majority of people think that they are just delusional perverts.

He said there was an element of social consensus that goes into identity, not that it was the defining reason. The line may be thin in some cases, but I think we can separate issues that a large percentage of people find unclear because they don't have any clue about gender and identity (beyond penis is man and vagina is not) and issues that are "I'm the mothafuckin pope!"

[Cisco]

He said there was an element of social consensus that goes into identity, not that it was the defining reason. The line may be thin in some cases, but I think we can separate issues that a large percentage of people find unclear because they don't have any clue about gender and identity (beyond penis is man and vagina is not) and issues that are "I'm the mothafuckin pope!"
It's a very thick and blurry line, not a thin one. I agree that "I am the Pope" (for values of "I" that =/= "the Pope") is on one side of it, but most of the other examples here are on the other side. There is quite a difference between "I'm a Christian," "I'm a liberal," "I'm a man" (in the transgendered), and "I'm the Pope." Ask yourself which one of those doesn't fit, and you'll see why Little Nemo's two paragraphs are disjointed.

[Tethered Kite]

Well, I think the question I'm reading here is whether other people are allowed to define you based on your actions. Who has the ultimate authority in defining an individual?

There are some interesting political implications involved here.

[Nametag]

I agree that the positions Bith Shuffle mentioned are not, taken alone or together, entirely sufficient to infallibly categorise someone as a conservative, but I feel you're missing his larger point: Somewhere, there has to be a cut off. A label like 'conservative' or 'democrat' entails adherence to certain beliefs. At some point, if a person refuses to adhere to enough of them they should lose the moral right to self-identify with that label. Just because it's difficult to pinpoint where this cut off should be doesn't necessary invalidate this principle.

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?

Had Bith named such a list, I might have less of a problem with it, but he gave the list he gave, and it's simply not striking at the root of conservatism. All the foreign policy positions are neocon -- old-fashioned isolationist conservatives will have no truck with all that bushwah, and many conservatives are conservationist as well, and quite concerned with the environment -- they disagree with liberals about the role of the government in protecting the environment, but not that it ought to be protected.

[Nametag]

Good post, but I disagree with your assertion that conservatives simply want to see life stop changing. Conservatives are not opposed to change at all (you don't hear too many conservatives railing against the scourge of HDTV for example). What conservatives are opposed to is change that is viewed as negative or harmful, or which is born of good intent but creates more and worse problems than it solves.
I'll repeat it, and maybe you can read a little more slowly this time:And that's ignoring the existence of personal conservatism, the simple desire to see life stop changing.
That, you see, was contrast -- between the political conservatism that we had been discussing, and the more personal kind that is not informed by events, or history, or even philosophy, but by observation, emotion, and fatigue. Honestly, it's a strain of conservatism that I associate with you, though of course you are not as naive as that.

[Nametag]

I agree that the positions Bith Shuffle mentioned are not, taken alone or together, entirely sufficient to infallibly categorise someone as a conservative, but I feel you're missing his larger point: Somewhere, there has to be a cut off. A label like 'conservative' or 'democrat' entails adherence to certain beliefs. At some point, if a person refuses to adhere to enough of them they should lose the moral right to self-identify with that label. Just because it's difficult to pinpoint where this cut off should be doesn't necessary invalidate this principle.

What if you met someone who was pro-life, pro-market, a deficit hawk, anti-government, anti-drug legalisation, anti-gay marriage, championed 2nd Amendment rights, believed America was designed to be a Christian nation, pro-Iraq war, anti-U.N., anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration, thought global warming was a crock, anti-affirmative action, pro-capital punishment, advocated for school vouchers, opposed government involvement in health care, wanted to abolish the welfare state, thought Ann Coulter was a great political philosopher with a lovely singing voice and voted for Bush twice but still called himself a democrat in the modern American mould? Wouldn't you feel like correcting him?

You know, I'm going to add to my post above, because it didn't really aim at the issue. The fact is that a liberal CAN believe all of those things. Most don't, it's true, but there was nothing about Bith's post that implied that his acquaintance was, for instance, opposed to gay marriage, gun control, medical marijuana, or any number of things that modern liberals support. More importantly, there wasn't a word about his position on social spending or taxes, which are the truly defining issues of modern liberalism.

Hell, I myself am pretty strongly pro-Israel, though I am occasionally dismayed at the incredible clumsiness of their actions ("All those Jews, and not one understands show business?" :rimshot:), and I actually am afraid of modern Islam (of course, I'm also afraid of modern Christianity, but not quite as afraid, on the whole). And from your list, I'm pro-2nd amendment (though open to quite a lot of regulation), and in favor of capital punishment.

[Little Nemo]

He said there was an element of social consensus that goes into identity, not that it was the defining reason.Exactly. I'm not saying you can't define yourself. But don't think that you have the absolute right to identify yourself as whatever you want to be. Because while you're calling yourself a Christian, according to your definition of what that means, you have to remember that there are six billion other people out there and they have their definitons of what a Christian is too.

It's arrogant to say that your definition is the only right one. And if you claim that every definition is right and everyone can decide what a word means to them then what's the point in having words at all?

[Starving Artist]

And I am saying that personal conservatism, political conservatism, whatever conservatism, rarely if ever constitutes a simple desire to see life stop changing. I've seen it said on this board several times before that conservatives oppose change...that this is what 'conservatism' means, as a matter of fact - a desire to conserve things the way they are. But this is simply not true, and your post, in whatever sense you wish to couch it, serves to perpetuate that false view.

And if you associate that kind of view with me you're doubly wrong, because my view is formed both by history, events and philosophy plus observation and emotion. "Fatigue", I'd quarrel with. 'Exasperation' might be a better word. :D

[Cisco]

Exactly. I'm not saying you can't define yourself. But don't think that you have the absolute right to identify yourself as whatever you want to be. Because while you're calling yourself a Christian, according to your definition of what that means, you have to remember that there are six billion other people out there and they have their definitons of what a Christian is too.

It's arrogant to say that your definition is the only right one. And if you claim that every definition is right and everyone can decide what a word means to them then what's the point in having words at all?

You're shooting off in a dozen different directions, and putting words in my mouth (if you are indeed addressing me; if not please clarify.) Let me see if I can untangle this.

First of all, identity and definition are not the same thing.

I can identify with a descriptor; let's just say something fairly neutral: tall. But that word in no way defines me. It's also interesting because, like most of the terms here, it is subjective and open to personal interpretation. I'm 6'4", so most people would call me tall, but someone who is 6'11" and plays in the NBA, has a 6'5" sister, 6'7" dad, 6'9" brothers, and 6'8"+ friends might just call me short.

As for claiming that it's arrogant to say that your definition is the only right one, well, I really hope that is directed at the OP, and not me, because I have done nothing of the sort.

And I've also not claimed every definition of anything was right. That would indeed render most words meaningless. The world just wouldn't work if I asked you for a spoon and then yelled at you when you handed me a fishing pole. But it is fair to say that every defensible use of a subjective term is valid. If I'm 5'1" and live and work in a community of little people, I can rightfully call myself tall, even if 99% of the world disagrees with me.

If I follow the moral teachings of Jesus while holding the opinion that the whole supernatural mess was added on later, I can call myself a Christian. This one really boils down to whether you believe the central tenet of Christianity is "Love thy neighbor" or that a cosmic water-walking zombie got nailed to a stick so you don't have to kill goats for his father anymore. It's a no-contest for me.

And finally, I'd wager that quite a great deal more people believe that penis = man, vagina = woman, than Jesus = Son of God, so by your ad populum argument, can or cannot a transgendered person self-identify as their preferred gender?

[Bryan Ekers]

Fuck it, I'll define and label myself any way I want. You got a problem with that? Go pound salt.

[Chimera]

Next you people will be telling me that I'm really NOT a Billionaire Playboy Time Travelling Secret Agent.

[kidchameleon]

And those who disagree with the OP are those who inflict the lack of true Scots on the world...

-Joe

It dovetails nicely with the lack of true sheep in the world.

[Miller]

Next you people will be telling me that I'm really NOT a Billionaire Playboy Time Travelling Secret Agent.

Not in this economy, at any rate.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

Maybe after we're done with all the identity debate we can figure out who gets to define what art is.

[Little Nemo]

You're shooting off in a dozen different directions, and putting words in my mouth (if you are indeed addressing me; if not please clarify.) Let me see if I can untangle this.Actually I wasn't really specifically addressing my posts in response to yours. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was posting more of a general sense of my views on the subject.

I see several approaches on how the definition of a word can be established. (And hopefully most people would agree that the issue of self-identification is a subset of the broader issue of word definition in general.)

One if the egalitarian solution: everyone can define the word for themselves. But as I said that leads to practical difficulties. You might define a Christian as somebody who follows the moral teachings of Jesus. I might define a Christian as somebody who beleives in the divine nature of Jesus. Somebody else might define a Christian as a small blue fish found in the Caribbean. And the egalitarian idea says all of these definitions are equally valid. But if the word Christian can mean anything then it really has no meaning.

The second approach is the arrogant one I spoke of. This is the idea that a word means what I think it does. Other people are correct if they agree with me and incorrect if they don't. Now, I think few people would agree with the concept when it's put as bluntly as that. But unfortunately, a lot of people act as if they believe this assumption is the correct one. They feel that some people have the authority to define words and other people have to fall in line with those definitions.

The third approach is the consensus one. Basically it says a word means what people think it means. Obviously this is not a precise standard - all people do not agree on what words mean (which is the whole point of this thread). And people who think they agree may actually have different meanings. Even some individuals may find their definition of a word can change depending on the context of its use.

But while this is the fuzziest standard it's also the one that appears to be the most useful. It allows people to communicate by promoting the idea of common definitions. It may not allow anyone to determine what a word means but it does allow everyone to have input into the meaning.

[Cisco]

Your egalitarian solution is overly simplistic and dismissive in favor of your consensus solution. There can be flexibility within a broad range while still rejecting wildly different (small blue fish) definitions. And yes, some words have very personal meanings. Contrary to someone's signature on this board, you're a writer if you say you're a writer. See post #47 when you get the urge to tell someone that they're not.

[Little Nemo]

Your egalitarian solution is overly simplistic and dismissive in favor of your consensus solution.I'm not seeing that. Either individual meanings are valid or they're not. I gave the reasons why I found the egalitarian solution to be unworkable.

It seems to me that some people want to embrace the egalitarian solution in principle while not accepting the problems that arise from its application. They want to shade it by saying that everyone is entitled to form their own meanings but those meanings have to have a connection with what other people's meanings are. To me, this just appears to be the consensus solution in disguise.

[Cisco]

Either individual meanings are valid or they're not.
Not true. I've explained this a few times already. And you haven't answered my question.

[Little Nemo]

Not true. I've explained this a few times already. And you haven't answered my question.I assume you mean this question:And finally, I'd wager that quite a great deal more people believe that penis = man, vagina = woman, than Jesus = Son of God, so by your ad populum argument, can or cannot a transgendered person self-identify as their preferred gender?In my opinion, yes, a person can self-identify themself as their preferred gender. I believe gender is not defined strictly by penises and vaginas.

[sqweels]

I'm not seeing that. Either individual meanings are valid or they're not. I gave the reasons why I found the egalitarian solution to be unworkable.

It seems to me that some people want to embrace the egalitarian solution in principle while not accepting the problems that arise from its application. They want to shade it by saying that everyone is entitled to form their own meanings but those meanings have to have a connection with what other people's meanings are. To me, this just appears to be the consensus solution in disguise.
No one is embracing an absolutely egalitarian solution. To self-identify as a Christian is to place a primary focus on Jesus and his teachings, otherwise it's absurd. But to embrace--first foremost--the teachings of Jesus while rejecting his divinity, while it challenges the widely-held definition, should not be dismissed outright. Especially given the personal nature of religion.

[Little Nemo]

No one is embracing an absolutely egalitarian solution. To self-identify as a Christian is to place a primary focus on Jesus and his teachings, otherwise it's absurd. But to embrace--first foremost--the teachings of Jesus while rejecting his divinity, while it challenges the widely-held definition, should not be dismissed outright. Especially given the personal nature of religion.But that's a consensus driven distinction. To say that a Christian can mean a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus or it can mean a person who follows Jesus' moral teachings are acceptable because these are widely held definitions of a Christian but saying a Christian is a kind of fish is not acceptable because this is not a widely held definition of the word is to say that definitions are formed by consensus.

[AClockworkMelon]

Guys. It's religion. If you don't believe in Christ's divinity then it ceases being religion and becomes philosophy. If I think Gandhi is a pretty cool dude and want to base my life on his teachings I wouldn't say that I worship him, I wouldn't say that I'm a member of a religion that's based around him.

[Little Nemo]

Guys. It's religion. If you don't believe in Christ's divinity then it ceases being religion and becomes philosophy. If I think Gandhi is a pretty cool dude and want to base my life on his teachings I wouldn't say that I worship him, I wouldn't say that I'm a member of a religion that's based around him.In some posts we're talking about religious terms. But we've also mentioned political and gender identification as well as the meaning of words in general. Most of the points being made about religious terms are also valid about these other terms.

[heatmiserfl]

Considering that Christ means the annointed one, it would seem silly to call oneself a Christian if they don't believe in the divinity of Christ. At the very least he would have to be a special prophet of God. Otherwise the word 'Christ' is meaningless.

The teachings of Jesus was not unique from a historical perspective. Many of the Axial religions throughout the world had a variation of the golden rule. I'm sure primitive societies had the golden rule. Other teachings of Jesus were also espoused before him and during his time. Secular humanists follow the golden rule and many of them are atheists.

Now I could see someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural things but goes to church with Christians and pretends to be a Christian. I'm sure there's lots of 'Christians' like that. They're just closet atheists.

[Anne Neville]

The problem with having some criterion other than self-identification for being a member of a group (Christians, Jews, what have you) is, who gets to decide who really is a member of the group and who isn't? Whoever gets to decide who is and who isn't a member of a group that some people consider important has a lot of power. You want to be careful who you give that kind of power to.

We Jews are arguing over this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F), too. I converted to Judaism through the Conservative movement, so there are some Jews who would say I'm not Jewish. I don't accept their claim to have the authority to determine who is a Jew and who isn't. Just because somebody says they have a system for determining who is a member of group X and who isn't, doesn't mean everybody has to accept that system.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Church, AFAIK, would consider me still a Christian, since I was baptized (in one of the denominations whose baptisms they accept as valid) as a baby. I don't consider myself a Christian, and I don't accept their claim that I am one. There's another definition of a Christian to throw out there for debate- anyone who has been baptized.

[Contrapuntal]

You're extremely wrong about this one. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. You don't have to believe he was literally a superhero anymore than you have to literally believe that all the trees of the field will clap their hands (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55%3A12&version=NIV) If you believe in him.if you follow his teachings you pretty much have to believe that he is the son of God and does have super powers, as John 3 (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=John+3&ver=kjv) makes clear.

[Cisco]

if you follow his teachings you pretty much have to believe that he is the son of God and does have super powers, as John 3 (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=John+3&ver=kjv) makes clear.
No you don't.

[Contrapuntal]

No you don't.Well his teachings say he is. Are you using some "gotcha" definition of "follow" that excludes "believe"?

[Yeticus Rex]

Disagree with the OP due to forced pigeonholing of 300+ million (or more) people. It's just not that black and white. Sure there are a few people that will flat out deny their true colors, but that's a incredibly small number while there are people (like me) who are looking at conservatism and liberalism and wonder which is the lesser of the two evils on a day to day basis just by reading and listening to the news. Lately, all I see is stupidity on both sides. From city politics on up to national politics, each side has it's merits, but spews much more short-sighted stupidity with the idea that it is for the betterment of the community, while it damages us further.

I also believe Peter denied Jesus three times, even though he was a Christian. Didn't make him an atheist now, did it?

[Cisco]

Well his teachings say he is. Are you using some "gotcha" definition of "follow" that excludes "believe"?

Read the thread.

[Contrapuntal]

Read the thread.These cryptic replies are a bit short of convincing.

If one is a follower of Jesus' teachings, one must believe in him, as I cited. And to believe in him is to believe that he has supernatural powers. It is all there in John 3. Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit of reading.

[Ludovic]

These cryptic replies are a bit short of convincing.

If one is a follower of Jesus' teachings, one must believe in him, as I cited. And to believe in him is to believe that he has supernatural powers. It is all there in John 3. Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit of reading.Lord knows how many people selectively follow Jesus's teachings. Just because they believe in his divinity and ignore everything else doesn't mean they get to call themselves Christian, while those who think he was a pretty cool guy and follow most of his suggestions for bettering one's life does not.

[DigitalC]

I've had a lot of girls say this with a straight face "I'm pro life but i am perfectly ok with other women making their own decisions". It got very annoying very fast trying to explain to them that that makes them pro choice. I think there was a mental block with admitting that they were not pro life because that would be a Big Deal in their families.

[Cisco]

These cryptic replies are a bit short of convincing.

Look, troll, you and I have been through this before. Enough times that I knew what you were doing and what you were going to do as soon as I saw your name in the thread. You're asking questions that I've already addressed. If you really want to know the answers, read the goddamn thread. If this is some bizarre shtick you feel like you have to perform to live up to your username, just leave me the fuck out of it. It's not funny.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Lord knows how many people selectively follow Jesus's teachings. Just because they believe in his divinity and ignore everything else doesn't mean they get to call themselves Christian, while those who think he was a pretty cool guy and follow most of his suggestions for bettering one's life does not.

I feel fairly confident in saying that pretty much everyone who says they follow the teachings of Jesus does so selectively. Some people are honest enough to admit it; others are not.

[MOIDALIZE]

Through the teachings of Jesus Christ, I have finally beaten level 8-4 of Super Mario Bros.

[Skald the Rhymer]

if you follow his teachings you pretty much have to believe that he is the son of God and does have super powers, as John 3 (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=John+3&ver=kjv) makes clear.

Untrue. One may decide, for instance, that since the Gospel of John was written much later than the other Gospels, and is quite obviously inconsistent with the narrative the others present, that it should be treated as less reliable than Mark, thought to be the oldest extant Gospel.

[Evil Captor]

Let me get this straight, Bith. You are saying that if someone claims to be X, but doesn't fit with your narrow definition of X, then they are not X.

Do you realize how stupid and self centered that is?

You seem to be proposing that we should accept everyone's self-iidentification at face value, or else we are stupid and self-centered. An interesting notion.

Evil Captor, sex god and king of the universe

[Contrapuntal]

Look, troll, you and I have been through this before. Enough times that I knew what you were doing and what you were going to do as soon as I saw your name in the thread. You're asking questions that I've already addressed. If you really want to know the answers, read the goddamn thread.I've read the thread. You have not addressed my questions.

As to the rest of your screed, I have no idea what you're talking about. But at least an ad hominem attack is an argument. Sort of. Not a very good one, but an argument.

If this is some bizarre shtick you feel like you have to perform to live up to your username, just leave me the fuck out of it. It's not funny.It's a musical term. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contrapuntal)



Untrue. One may decide, for instance, that since the Gospel of John was written much later than the other Gospels, and is quite obviously inconsistent with the narrative the others present, that it should be treated as less reliable than Mark, thought to be the oldest extant Gospel. I see. So one is free to pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings one should follow? Is there a lower limit to this? Could I pick, say, one teaching to follow and still be a Christian? Would I have to follow it all the time, or just when the mood strikes me? Still a Christian then?

You folks have defined "Christian" so weakly as to be of no use whatsoever. Hell, anyone who pays taxes is a Christian, right?


If you google "Christianity central belief" every response on the first page agrees with me;, i.e, that belief in Christ as the son of God (what Cisco would call "superpowers") is crucial. It's hardly a radical position.

[Pleonast]

I'm still trying to find the verse in John 3 that says anything about supernatural powers.

[Contrapuntal]

I'm still trying to find the verse in John 3 that says anything about supernatural powers.Transportation to heaven and the granting of everlasting life. Do you consider these to be natural phenomona?

[Cisco]

I've read the thread. You have not addressed my questions.Read again.

As to the rest of your screed, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, I knew you'd say that. You're not funny, you're not clever, you're not contributing anything to the discussion. You're just plain trolling to get people's hackles up. Everything you've asked has been addressed, and there is absolutely nothing "cryptic" about "read the thread." It's about as crystal clear as it gets. I'm not repeating myself like you always goad me into doing so you can perform an endless string of "gotcha" definitions and logical acrobats to amuse yourself. For the last time: if you're being genuine, then read the thread and respond to what I've already posted. Otherwise Fuck. Off.

[Pleonast]

Transportation to heaven and the granting of everlasting life. Do you consider these to be natural phenomona?
Yes.

[Contrapuntal]

Yeah, I knew you'd say that. You're not funny, you're not clever, you're not contributing anything to the discussion. You're just plain trolling to get people's hackles up.Whose hackles other than yours, which seem quite frankly to be preternaturally disposed to getting up, are raised? Yeah, I know, I know, read the thread.


Everything you've asked has been addressed, and there is absolutely nothing "cryptic" about "read the thread." It's about as crystal clear as it gets. I'm not repeating myself like you always goad me into doing so you can perform an endless string of "gotcha" definitions and logical acrobats to amuse yourself. For the last time: if you're being genuine, then read the thread and respond to what I've already posted. Otherwise Fuck. Off.So, rather than point out exactly where all this has been addressed, you take it upon yourself to just repeat your mantra over and over, hoping for what? Enlightenment? If you can't be bothered to point out exactly what I have missed (a simple link would do nicely) but would rather cast aspersions, ad hominems, and epithets, perhaps you would do well to take your own advice.

You know, most folks would just cite the post in question instead of going off on a rant.

[Contrapuntal]

Yes.OK then. Granting that simply for the sake of the argument, surely you must agree that Jesus possesses superpowers. Or is there anyone else who can grant everlasting life?

[Cisco]

So, rather than point out exactly where all this has been addressed, you take it upon yourself to just repeat your mantra over and over, hoping for what? Enlightenment? If you can't be bothered to point out exactly what I have missed (a simple link would do nicely) but would rather cast aspersions, ad hominems, and epithets, perhaps you would do well to take your own advice.

You know, most folks would just cite the post in question instead of going off on a rant.
And for any other poster, that's exactly what I would do. But I've been through this shit with your troll ass before. The burden of proof that you're not dicking around is on you now, as far as I'm concerned. Like I said: if you're being genuine, respond to what I've already posted and we'll talk. If not, keep being an asshole and acting like you don't know what I'm talking about I will put you on ignore and you will never have to worry about talking to me again.

[Skald the Rhymer]

OK then. Granting that simply for the sake of the argument, surely you must agree that Jesus possesses superpowers. Or is there anyone else who can grant everlasting life?

Athena, of couse. She just doesn't, because she knows it's a bad idea. That's what Goddess of Wisdom means.

[Contrapuntal]

you're being genuine, respond to what I've already posted and we'll talk.Show me the money dude. A couple of mouse clicks should do it.


If not, keep being an asshole and acting like you don't know what I'm talking about I will put you on ignore and you will never have to worry about talking to me again.This may not jibe with your Cisco centric view of the world, but the next time I worry about talking to you will be the first.

[Contrapuntal]

Athena, of couse. She just doesn't, because she knows it's a bad idea. That's what Goddess of Wisdom means.Still within the definition of superpower though, right.

[Cisco]

Show me the money dude. A couple of mouse clicks should do it.
Riiiiight. Exactly what I figured. Been through this exact scenario way too many times with you before. Your little ignorant act where you ask questions that have already been answered, and jump through hoops to pretend like they haven't. Then I point out where they have, and it all becomes a meta argument where we go around in circles and you increasingly feign ignorance and act increasingly rude. I wouldn't have remembered your name until at least the 3rd or 4th time you did it, and I remember at least 3 or 4 more instances of you doing it. It's your M.O., and I'm not interested in it. Welcome to ignore.

[Cisco]

I can't figure out how to put you on ignore so just don't talk to me anymore.

[Contrapuntal]

I can't figure out how to put you on ignore so just don't talk to me anymore.From Control Panel find Settings and Options, then scroll down to Edit Ignore List.

[Cisco]

From Control Panel find Settings and Options, then scroll down to Edit Ignore List.

How 'bout you post weekday evenings-- I'll take mornings -- we'll split the weekends down the middle (is Saturday or Sunday better for you?), and we agree to make late nights neutral territory. See, I'm usually asleep by 10 or 11, but if I'm suffering insomnia or I wake up really early . . .

[Contrapuntal]

How 'bout you post weekday evenings-- I'll take mornings -- we'll split the weekends down the middle (is Saturday or Sunday better for you?), and we agree to make late nights neutral territory. See, I'm usually asleep by 10 or 11, but if I'm suffering insomnia or I wake up really early . . .Generally, I only have access to a computer weekdays from say 11 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Sometimes on weekends, but for less time. Saturday is my best weekend shot.

Look, I'll try to not engage you. I seriously didn't know that I had pissed you off in the past. My memory isn't what it used to be, and I confuse user names sometimes. My apologies if it seemed like trolling to you, but, in my mind at least, my questions are legitimate.

[Cisco]

Ok, read posts 19 and 46 for my opinions on the matter. From my biblical, religious, and historical studies, I don't believe that the accounts of Jesus are reliable enough to trust the supernatural elements. In my personal opinion, those were added on later to get more people to sign up. I think he was a Buddha-like figure who saw suffering and hypocrisy all around him, created a moral code that could help alleviate it to the benefit of all, and went around preaching it to whoever would listen. The moral teachings are what I consider the foundations of Christianity, and I can't imagine telling someone who follows them that they are not a Christian, while agreeing that some of the scumbags I know who have never read the bible and treat everyone like dirt - but have been "saved" for fear of hell - are.

[foolsguinea]

Yeah, I voted for the GOP for years before realizing that despite the fact that my mother's family were knee-jerk GOP supporters & I grew up in a GOP district, I was not a conservative, my opinions (& some of my mother's) were anathema to conservatives, & I had practically no utility in staying in the party.

Of course, finding out that balanced budgets were a big fat lie helped too. :D

[Walker in Eternity]

I see. So one is free to pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings one should follow? Is there a lower limit to this? Could I pick, say, one teaching to follow and still be a Christian? Would I have to follow it all the time, or just when the mood strikes me? Still a Christian then?

You folks have defined "Christian" so weakly as to be of no use whatsoever. Hell, anyone who pays taxes is a Christian, right?


If you google "Christianity central belief" every response on the first page agrees with me;, i.e, that belief in Christ as the son of God (what Cisco would call "superpowers") is crucial. It's hardly a radical position.

I'm not from the US, but in the UK there are plenty of clerics in the Church of England who do not believe in the literal truth of the bible, the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus, but would still count themselves as christian from a philosophical point of view.

As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, I'm all for letting people define themselves as they wish.

And remember the bible was formally put together some time after Jesus died (assuming he even existed at all, but that's another argument) and there were many gospels that were not included as the powers that be decided they were heretical.

[tagos]

I think I'm going to regret asking this...

... but there are 'Christians' who think this?

There are regular 'Christian' posters on this board who appear to think the essential message of Jesus was 'screw you, I've got mine' so I expect so.

In England 'Christians' who don't believe in most of the long-standing tenets of the religion are known as 'Anglicans'.

[tagos]

Untrue. One may decide, for instance, that since the Gospel of John was written much later than the other Gospels, and is quite obviously inconsistent with the narrative the others present, that it should be treated as less reliable than Mark, thought to be the oldest extant Gospel.

Ah - the 'pick'n'mix' approach. Hate the Gay but not the Shellfish.

[Angua]

-If you think that the Qu'ran should be taken metaphorically, you're not a Muslim.

And what, exactly, gives you the "right" to overrule what God has said? Chapter 24, Verse 35 of the Koran:
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as a shining star. Kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow forth though no fire touched it. Light upon light, Allah guides to His light whom He will. And Allah speaks to mankind in allegories, for Allah is knower of all things.

When God says in the Koran that the Koran should be taken metaphorically, what gives you any right whasoever to suggest that believing the Koran is a metaphor makes one "not a Muslim"?

[Skald the Rhymer]

And what, exactly, gives you the "right" to overrule what God has said? Chapter 24, Verse 35 of the Koran:


When God says in the Koran that the Koran should be taken metaphorically, what gives you any right whasoever to suggest that believing the Koran is a metaphor makes one "not a Muslim"?

Posts like this are why I love you best, Angua.

[Angua]

Posts like this are why I love you best, Angua.

*blushes furiously*

[Ludovic]

And what, exactly, gives you the "right" to overrule what God has said? Chapter 24, Verse 35 of the Koran:


When God says in the Koran that the Koran should be taken metaphorically, what gives you any right whasoever to suggest that believing the Koran is a metaphor makes one "not a Muslim"?Maybe that passage was a metaphor.

[Angua]

Maybe that passage was a metaphor.

A metaphor for taking things as a metaphor??

[Ludovic]

Yeah, like "all Cretans are liars" or something. It's DEEP, man!

[Skald the Rhymer]

*blushes furiously*

Don't blush, dearest. No matter how cute you get, I am still not giving you any of my chicken casserole.

[Angua]

Don't blush, dearest. No matter how cute you get, I am still not giving you any of my chicken casserole.

Darn! What can I say, I tried. ;)

[Skald the Rhymer]

Darn! What can I say, I tried. ;)

:: tessers Angua a plate of chicken casserole stolen from the Skald of Earth-analgoue-oh-who-cares-what-the-number is ::

I mean, technically it's not MINE.

[Angua]

:: tessers Angua a plate of chicken casserole stolen from the Skald of Earth-analgoue-oh-who-cares-what-the-number is ::

I mean, technically it's not MINE.

I'll take it so long as its tasty... And almost like yours...