Skald, I think you’re a cool guy and all, but honestly, if you don’t believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, you’re not a Christian by any reasonable definition of the word. An admirer of Jesus, maybe even a follower of Jesus, but not a Christian.
Oooooookay? Do you take sugar with your porridge?
Given the etymology of the word Christian- I think you are mistaken.
Maybe you meant to say that Skald the Rhymer doesn’t worship or believe in the way that you approve of. And if this is so, isn’t a statement undermining Skald’s faith a little, I don’t know, un-Christianlike?
Oh, and “reasonable definition” doesn’t so much apply here. I think what these threads have accomplished is that faith is not easily defined or measured; and each person intreprets it, feels it, and applies it differently.
Judging from the responses to the relatively recent What is a Christian? thread, quite a few would agree with you, and quite a few would disagree.
This is the rub. The word Christian denotes several things all related but different.
(nonexhaustive list follows)
Someone who follows the teachings of Christ as writ in the Bible.
Someone who goes to a Christian Church.
Someone who thinks a human called Christ said some of the best stuff ever, and believes he/she should try and live their life in a way similar to Christ.
Someone who was born in a Christian family, and never really thought about it.
Someone who follows the teachings of Paul as writ in the Bible.
Someone who worships the contents of the Bible as the innerrant word of God.
Generaly someone will call themselves a Christian if they identify themselves as Christian. But you can’t expect all or some or even any of the above ideas to be espoused by that person.
Like the 10% of hetrosexual men in the New York study recently that had had sex with another man in the last year. Just because someone labels themselves as something doesn’t mean you can expect to use that label to know much about that person.
You’re free to think that.
I’ve resisted jumping into these discussions (because all too often, even when being
polite and all people still tend to talk past each other), but I had to respond to this.
On what basis would you say humankind is not more evolved than other forms of
life? Morally? Cognitively? Physically? Because it is pretty clear to me that we ARE
morally and cognitively superior (if nothing else). Sure a particularly gifted animal
could have a “peak” experience of compassion or reason but humans will hit much
higher peaks (as well as sustained plateaus) than most any animal, in general.
Only a select few organisms have the cognitive capacity anyway: a chimp might be
compassionate towards an injured associate but I doubt a fish ever would.
Not that I believe that animals are any “farther” from God, or that we should not be
compassionate towards animals whenever possible (and turn away when cruelty is
foisted on them or their habitat). but I honestly don’t grok your point there.
Bishop Sprong says we should not abandon the term Christian to the likes of Swaggart and Falwell.
I stopped calling myself a Christian several years ago because my own beliefs , like Sklads, had gone far beyond what 90% of Christianity teaches as “the truth”. I also stopped because I didn’t want to be associated with the jackasses who were doing such a great disservice to the teachings of Jesus. After reading Bishop Sprong though I have reconsidered. There must be something appropriate for those of us who revere and/or admire the teachings of Jesus but cannot embrace the most common tenants of traditional Christianity. Why should we surrender the concept of Jesus and his message to those who horribly distort it?
I’ll have to give it some thought.
Ultimately meaningless nitpick, but it’s Spong. John Shelby Spong.
Congratulations, Skald Your calm, rational, straightforward explanation of your beliefs and values has satisfied neither side.
Of course, your Christianity (or absence of it) has nothing to do with that. Next time, just post something called A few thoughts on being an extreme liberal and you can get roasted by the political segment of the Board.
I’ll start from this post but I want to say I’ve appreciated your thoughts in this thread. I started to read “The End of Faith” and didn’t get all the way through it. I believe I missed some of the best stuff. His views on spirituality vs. organized religion sound interesting.
I do agree with him that we need to challenge people’s beliefs. As a former Christian and someone who has friends and relatives who are Christians its not an easy task. Certainly the “What a crock of shit” tactic doesn’t work. IMHO within many Christians the essence of the spirituality that Harris speaks of is working. There’s a certain value in that seed and whatever truth that can be found in the spiritual journey. The question for me is, how do I challenge beliefs I think only hinder human growth without attacking the truth within it. I try to encourage people to discern the truth from tradition, since Jesus taught us that the truth would set us free, and to not embrace the traditions taught by men.
concerning the first commandment. I get your point and it’s a valid one. One of the things that bothers me about organized religion is the language and traditions that only serve to separate us as cohabitants of the planet. IMHO that’s not what JC taught. When I think of god in the 1st commandment god represents that unity of humankind. I think the point is to stress those two commandments together. You cannot follow the 1st if you are not doing the 2nd. You must define your love for your god by how you express your love for your neighbor, which Jesus explained was everybody. IMHO that’s what I’d stress. You cannot love God with your all if you want to deny other humans their rights.
In my own view it all comes down to how your beliefs, whatever they are and where ever they come from, translate into your interaction with others. If while treading the path of organized religion it becomes a vehicle of personal growth then I have no real problem with that. The labels don’t matter so I agree. Why call yourself anything at all? Have the courage to choose and walk your own path. Still, as in my other posts, it bothers me to abandon the teachings of Christ to those who don’t follow them. But wait, perhaps it is the wide diversity within Christianity, which allows hateful hypocritical jackasses to lay claim to the title, that has rendered the term meaningless.
Thank you.
Funny thing, when I typed Sprong into Google it was surprising to see how often others got it wrong to. Odd that I’ve read his newsletters and still had his name wrong. Just one of those weird things I guess. Like so many dopers calling me
cosmodan
Physically and logistically, I suppose. It’s just a phrase that bugs me - like saying that modern day hunters and gatherers are more “primitive” than city dwellers. Every thing on this planet this week has, to the best of current scientific knowledge, been around as long as everything else - through different chains of mutation and evolution. That is, “life” only happened once, so a crocodile is just as well evolved and suited to it’s environment as a fruit fly as a buttercup as a grape plant as a human. They’re all equal, for lack of a better metaphor, in the eyes of God.
People, if we are unique in any way at all, which I’m not convinced we are, might possibly be unique in having a sense of different possible futures. This, I believe, gives us a sense of morals and ethics and moral and ethical responsibility that other plants and animals don’t share. But it’s not because we’re superior or “more highly evolved” than anything else, just because our brains have this weird mutation that allows for abstract thought and the communication of those abstractions with others.
My point is simply that we’re no better than animals, as we ARE animals. We are no better than plants, as we ARE part of nature. I have no problem with animals killing, eating or running needed experiments on other animals (or plants) - that’s part of the animal world. I do have a problem with the idea that we’re entitled to do anything we want to because we’re somehow superior. It may not mean much of a practical difference, but I was describing philosophy, not policy.
Many of my beliefs are similar to Skald’s.
Recognized by whom? I know many Christians with similar beliefs. But even if no other Christian but me believed this way, as long as I was honest with myself and comfortable in what I believed, then I need only the recognition of the Christ.
tagos, thanks for the link on Harris. I’m unfamiliar with his book. Are you familiar with the brain studies of Persinger? His own take on his experiments are best. Others seem to add their own twist.
Even Billy Graham doesn’t hold the “Christians only” belief anymore. He was asked about it one night on Larry King. I remember that he quoted the Scripture where Jesus says, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold.” I hope that Franklin Graham will someday come around to his father’s way of thinking.
There are some things that I have left unsettled in my mind about what I believe and that’s okay. I think Paul said something like, “I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief.” (I don’t agree with Paul on a lot of things, but I think I understand that one.)
Have you had a moral revelation, and if so, what was it like?
So to you Jesus was just a wise philosopher? A man, perhaps a good smart man, but nothing more?
While omniscience may be irrelevant to you, do you think your god is omniscient? Do you think he is all powerful? Do you think all things in the universe happen according to god’s will?
But what makes you think that god didn’t have everything to do with all the bad things in the bible/life and only gives us enough good so that we can really appreciate what suffering is? It seems you are just accepting that god is good as an axiom when god being evil would be at least an equally compelling axiom. You can’t rationally use the bible to call god good without being stuck with the bible also describing him as a monster. Also are you aware that the Amalekites are just one example of what is easily dozens of examples of god’s chosen people wiping out every man woman and child of rival towns? These stories pervade the Old Testament and Jesus never once had a bad word to say about any of these massacres.
So you don’t worship Jesus, and he is about equal to these other guys in your estimation? I’m asking, not putting words in your mouth.
But do you see the amount of cherry picking you are doing. You reduce the bible down to the words of Jesus. Endorse only 4 pages of Jesus’ words by name (the Sermon on the Mount) and even say you don’t agree with everything that is in those few pages. By what grounds would you call Jesus even a good philosopher if you have to exclude so much of his work? Also, what did Jesus say that you think is so wise anyway?
I ask because I wanted to know if you arrived at Jesus being worthy of adoration because of independent study, or if you were raised taking this for granted. I want to know if you admiration for his is truly real or if there is a chance that it is a relic feeling from your childhood.
But you would agree that you really aren’t aspiring to be like Christ in the bible, as you have indicated that you disagree with a lot he said. It seems to me that you are aspiring to be more like your idealized version of Christ, which is arguably based more on your own morality than of his. Think about this and tell me if you disagree.
Nothing huge. Unless you count my realization at the age of 13 that the God of the Old Testament was an unpleasant fellow, and given the choice between following him and throwing oneself into an active volcano, Mt. Etna might be a wise choice.
Hey, you forgot all that red hair. And he was a carpenter who walked everywhere he went, so he was doubtlessly buff.
I’m going to hell for that one.
Anywhistle–Jesus was an extremely wise philosopher and one worthy of emulation, yes, but not a superhumanly powerful figure nor one to whom one should ask intercession of in any literal sense.
Just out of curiosity, whom are you arguing with? I don’t think God is a he or a she, as I said earlier. You’d have to define the terms. For instance, I disbelieve in the notion of omniscience,
The God of the Bible is a fictional character who represents what the authors of the Bible understood God to be. It is therefore irrelevant to wonder whether that God (whom I will call a he) committed, say, the genocide of the Deluge (which I agree would be an atrocity if it had ever happened), since it is a fictional account.
I never made that assertion. I don’t believe that assertion. Therefore it would be silly of me to defend that assertion.
Again, whom are you arguing with?
Nah. Please define “compelling.” But I don’t recall saying that “god is good is an axiom.” I basically said the intelligence behind the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. For the rest of this discussion I shall call said intelligence the Architect, because the term God is so freighted with prior usage as to be a distraction. If I write “God” henceforth, you may assume that I am referring to the fictional character whose story is told in the Old Testament, whom I do not believe exists any more than Eru Iluvatur does, but who represents the understanding of several dozen dead Hebrews of the nature of the Architect.
Nitpick. The Bible does not describe God as a monster; the Bible attributes to God behavior we consider monstrous.
:rolleyes:
[ironic voice]
No, badchad, I was utterly unaware of the multiple instances of murder, genocide, and forced marriage/rape that pervade the account of the Isrealites’ invasion of Canaan. The only book–nay, the only chapter–of the Tanakh I ever read was I Samuel 13.
[/ironic voice]
I don’t think it matters that no words of Jesus on the subject of those massacres is recorded. One, because it’s safe to assume that we don’t have even 10% of Jesus’ words recorded. Two, because I don’t claim that Jesus was perfect or all-wise or all-knowing. You are, again, arguing with someone else. Maybe my eldest brother.
I admitted to cherry-picking in my OP. I have already stated which of Jesus’ words I find most useful: the majority of the sermon on the mount; I’d add to that the parables of the prodigal son and the good samaritan. I use Jesus, or rather my idealized image of Jesus, as a model, a paragon on which to base my behavior. Since I happily concede that much of the Bible is myth and poetry, it shouldn’t surprise you that I disallow much of it. There’s good stuff in the Eddas too, but I’m not about to emulate Siegfried’s relationship with his sister.
I went through a long period of atheism and agnosticism, sparked by my reading the Old Testament and paying attention; the story of the Amalekites is the one that got my attention as morally indefensible.
I think I did that above.
Unless you tell me otherwise I’ll take that as a no.
I’ll ask you again, what particular things do you think qualify him as being extremely wise? Also when you say wise, would you say the wisest philosopher ever? How would you stack him against Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Schopenhauer, Russell, Santana etc?
I hardly think I am arguing. I’m still trying to clarify your position. I’ll take it that you don’t think god is omniscient. As for definitions when I say “all powerful” I mean being able to do anything he wants, saving for the logical contradictions you outlined earlier. Does your god have this quality? As by describing god as the architect of the universe do you think the universe acts entirely as he, or it, wishes or wills it to?
You both misunderstand and misquoted me. I’m not saying you made that assertion I’m asking what makes you doubt that assertion.
Convincing, persuasive, or likely to be true.
When I asked you how you decide which parts of the bible you accept as true you said:
This implies that you deny bad stories as having to do with god but not good ones. You gave no reason to deny bad stories except to say they are bad. This implies that god is good is an axiom of yours. If you have another reason please say. However, from statements you are making now it seem that god has nothing to do with the bible. Is the latter absolutely correct?
Is god of the New Testament equally fictional in your mind?
Again I’m just trying to be absolutely clear of your position.
I don’t think “who was the wisest philosopher ever” is a question that can have any meaningful answer. Plato & Aristotle, for instance, both had interesting things to say about metaphysics, but their thoughts on science (which I don’t think either would have differentiated from philosophy) were simply awful. I can find good thigns and bad things to say about all the persons you named,and for that matter, Jesus. Since I don’t worship Jesus as a god, but rather look upon him as a moral example among many other such examples, it seems pointless to go on and on.
As I said, I don’t believe the Architect of the Universe is describable in human terms, and I don’t think it matters particularly whether one believes in it or not. I can’t see such an entity having wants or desires, therefore I don’t see how I can answer your question.
We can talk about Galactus,if you want.
See above. Also see the definition of “architect.”
Why are you even bothering? THAT ASSERTION IS NOT PART OF MY BELIEF SYSTEM. Since I don’t believe it, and you don’t believe it, there is nothing to argue about.
The Bible is myth and poetry; it reveals a record of what people have conceived of God in the past. Some of that is good, i.e., in accordance with what my reasons and conscience define as morally upright & admirable; some of it is bad. Since I don’t hold that the Bible is an infallible arbiter of morality, it should surprise no one that I agree with some things it relates but not others. The Architect has something to do with the Bible, though, in the sense that the Architect has somethingto do with everything that exists.
Skald I imagine you are free to label your beliefs anything you want but if you just admitted you were a deist up front you wouldn’t have near so much explaining to do.
So the primate that the bishop would elect would be a Spong-monkey? 