Now who’s salting other people’s porridge? By the arguments put forwards by many here, Phelps is just as much a Christian as Skald. He just has a very …different view on the teachings of Christ from the liberal ideals portrayed here.
If I was hard-pressed, I’d say Phelps was a Christian whereas Skald was a Deist with a lot of respect for Jesus’ teachings. Maybe make up a new term for people who have “an association” with Jesus as philosopher rather than Jesus as Christ - mmm, maybe Jeshuans?
Sure I do! That’s what’s so easy about being Christian apparently - the “precepts that I assign to the Christ figure.” Maybe 90% of what Jesus said can be attributed to misinterpretation, metaphor, misquoted, only relatable during the time he lived, or too vague. But at least 10% of it I think is super cool and I totally live my life according to it. Just like all the other “liberal” Christians do.
Then you are a follower of Christ, a Christian so to speak. Even if you follow only the ‘bad Christ’ parts of the Bible, you could claim to be following Christ and hense a Christian.
It is fine for other people to say “your not my sort of Christian”, or “your not a [Roman Catholic/Presbitarian/Jehovas Witness/Methodist/Baptist/ etc…]” since those are all terms with more restrictions on their meaning than mere Christian.
That’s a good point the word christ implies the annointed one. So it would also be necessary to believe that Christ has a special relationship with “The Architect” that is beyond what normal people posess. Though it could be no more than posessing a more complete understanding of The Architect or the world he created.
Part of the problem is the word christ does not directly imply “the physical son of God” if it did, then a lot more liberal Christians might not use the word christ to discribe their faith.
After all if Christ was truely Human, where did his Y chromosomes come from? Does God have a genetic code? If not how can he be the physical (rather than spiritual) Father? What would a Spiritual Father be, since Fatherhood is generally related to reproduction, he would be a Godfather figure instead 
So what happens if you pick the “good parts” from multiple religions, believe in those specific tenets you picked and use them to live your life, but don’t actually believe in the existence of their specific gods/prophets/incarnations/angels/whatever.
Can someone simultaneously be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan (or all of the above)?
I’d say that they’re a thoughtful, possibly spiritual, person who admires philosophy, morality, etc… But I wouldn’t say that they’re actually followers of whatever religions.
I think that, after a certain point that’s hard to define prescisely depending on the religion, you can follow some of the principles inspired by a religion, but you’re no longer a “follower” of that religion. Certainly, individual followers of a religion are not necessarily a homogeneous group with identical beliefs in all respects. But if you don’t draw a line somewhere as to what beliefs define a religion in general terms, then those descriptors lose their meaning.
Nah. That only applies to Rhymers, silly. How 'bout you call yourself whatever you want to?
Of course, I should properly be addressed as “Rightful, future, and inevitable God-King of Earth,” but that’s a different issue.
I think if Skald called himself a Christian, with no qualifiers, he’d be misleading most people. They’d be assuming that he believes most of the traditional Christian beliefs (as found in the creeds and statements of faith of the various churches). If he calls himself an “extremely liberal Christian,” though, they’d assume he claimed some affinity for traditional Christianity but would be warned that he diverged from these beliefs and they shouldn’t assume too much about what he does and does not assent to.
From what you’ve said in this thread, it sounds like there are some traditional Christian beliefs that you are agnostic to and others you explicitly reject. Calling yourself a Christian agnostic suggests to me that you take an “I don’t know” position towards things like the divine status of Jesus, the accuracy of the Bible, miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven, hell, etc.—not that you definitely disbelieve them.
Calling yourself a Christian agnostic also brings to my mind the book The Christian Agnostic by Leslie Weatherhead (which is long out of print—I found my copy at a used book sale). I am tempted to quote from this book at length, but I’ll limit myself to the passage where Weatherhead explains what he means by the term:
Of course it brings Weatherhead to mind; that’s who I am thinking of when I refer to myself thusly.
I have it in hardcover, by the way.
“Fixed”? Last I looked, the pool of humans was still growing apace.
Just so you know, Dopers, I opened this thread so I could see if badchad was interested in or capable of civil discourse. Since he seems to have exited, I’m not likely to come back to it; I thought I’d mention that so as to not to seem rude if anyone asks a question of me.
Ciao.
You might be surprised to learn that your take on Christianity is more conservative than you think! I would not consider it “extremely liberal”. Not compared to a large body of Christian theology that began in Germany in the 19’th century (see, for example, Higher Criticism) and similar Christian interpretations and views which became fairly popular in Europe and America in the early and middle 20’th within Protestant churches (outside of fundamentalism, of course). Not only did these highly learned and sophisticated Christians reject the idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the virgin birth and all the other myths, but many of them also rejected the divinity of Jesus/Christ and often even the existence of God! Some of them defined God as the “ultimate ground of being”, for example. If you find yourself asking “what the hell does that mean?”, you’re far from alone, even among many of the most knowledgeable theologians of the era. To me, that’s indistinguishable from pantheism, and I hold that pantheism is utterly indistinguishable from atheism.
You might want to learn more about the famous liberal Christian theology of such brilliant thinkers as Rudolf Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and perhaps even Karl Barth (who is considered to be neo-orthodox rather than liberal).
I’m sorry, but that’s not valid according to a very large number of Christians as well as some of the greatest theologians who’ve ever lived. See, for example, my short list of theologians in my post above.
Sadly, contrary to tagos’s opinion, that’s closer to the mark than what Harris would like to acknowledge. His rant about meditation and how “spirituality” (whatever that means) is necessary for morality in my opinion somewhat ruins his otherwise excellent book. I found his critique (well, trouncing, really) of Islam to be the most important and most valuable aspect of that work.
I’d parody his book this way:
Many brilliant and highly important theologians would disagree with you.
Ah, you must be using the word “primitive” in a sense I’m not familiar with. Here are the standard definitions:
Clearly, modern day hunters and gatherers are more “primitive” than city dwellers. That’s a perfectly appropriate term.
I can’t agree. There has never been any other animal except man who can not only adapt to his environment, he can radically alter it to suit himself, thereby drastically reducing evolutionary pressures to almost nothing.
Man is unique in many ways, perhaps the most important of which is that we alone possess the ability to store information outside of our DNA. And that changes everything. We are not only unique, we are profoundly unique. (not that this gives any credibility to religious or supernatural or mystical ideas, of course).
Heh, I merely mentioned Nietzsche’s name in a pit thread and I was furiously, ridiculously attacked by those folks, who accused me of being a 15 year old boy who also admired Ayn Rand! Sheesh!
Isn’t the word Christ a title given to Jesus?
If this is so, then his followers would be called Jeasusians. Christ seems to me to mean the Chosen one,or the title. To be a Christian then would mean you would have to believe Jesus was the Messiah the Jews were, and still are, waiting for.
Monavis
I agree, however, I think the difference is whether the person sees that association as serious enough, or important enough to them to claim the title for themselves. You or I may not agree with them. When someone refers to Swaggart or Falwell as Christians I can’t help but think. No they’re not. Especially in a religious discussion. My own reverence for the teachings of Christ bristles when hateful people claim the title.
I understand what you mean about context and I agree. In a religious discussion the term “I’m a Christian” needs some qualifiers if your beliefs are far outside the norm. “In my own way” is probably enough. If the person cares enough to ask for details they can. I believe in this case the qualifiers were laid out in the OP.
Now someone could say “I’m Catholic” and we know that may mean they actually practice or they may just have catholic parents. The same may be said for Christians. I’m a christian may easily mean “I have a christian background, my parents were christian, and I don’t go to church anymore” What about their beliefs? They probably haven’t even thought about it for years.
I think this person would definitely fall under the “In my own {insane} way”
Seriously, look at how Falwell and other hateful people are readily recognized as Christians. Whats the difference?
IS follower or Christ enough or does it have to be worship? I understand the difference between principles and philosophies rather than religious worship. The term “I’m a Christian” spoken by an individual has more variables than the christian religion , although that varies quite a bit as well. The word religion to me denotes some kind of organized worship rather than just personal convictions.
OOOOo Phelps is another guy I can’t really refer to as Christian no matter what he says, but I get your drift.
Maybe if someone asks me I should qualify them.
“Are you a Christian?”
“Well that depends. So you think Jimmy Swaggart is a Christian?”
“Why yes I do.”
"In that case I’m not’
I’m in favor of a new term. The reason I no longer call myself one is because I think the most common understanding of the word doesn’t apply to me.
I also don’t have a problem with the word having such a wide meaning that one must ask for details to get to the individuals definition. It’s pretty much that way already.
How’s “cherry-picker”?