Please stay calm. While being agitated is fun, there’s no reason to get agitated here.
This thread is, explicitly, one about definitions. And the problem with the term “Christianity” is that that there are a hell of a lot of cooks stirring the pot. It’s quite literally impossible to come up with an explicit list of criteria that won’t exclude some group of established christians, and which (thus) has historical precedent proving it incorrect. So, when a person is in a position to weigh in with their opinion on the subject, it’s as accurate as any other option to just shrug and go along with what they say.
Of course the OP disallows asking Mr. X his opinion, so (as I said) what’s your No True Scotsman argument? Mr. X walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sheds water off his back like a duck. Who is to say that the duck in question isn’t a christian?
I’m actually legit not agitated at all. I think that “if they call themselves Christian, they are Christian” is a perfectly reasonable answer.
We are being expected in this society, more and more, to accept that if one identifies as X, they are X. I can think of no reason why religious identification should be an exception. You certainly are entitled to believe that possessing a set “Jesusy” beliefs makes you a Christian, even if you don’t believe Christ actually existed. Who am I to say otherwise?
You can label whatever you want to label. But some things need labels a hell of a lot more than others.
A social clique that wouldn’t interest anybody outside a small circle of friends might have a label, but hardly needs one. If Catholicism and Protestantism didn’t have their self-designated labels, someone else would have long ago applied labels to them that stuck, due to their being omnipresent in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world.
If you’re trying to convince me that Catholicism and Protestantism are any less silly or cliquey or fandomy than Jediism, you’re failing spectacularly.
And it’s not about whether peer pressure is making us need to label Mr. X’s belief system; the OP is asking us to categorize it. There are those who think it doesn’t qualify as Christianity for various silly reasons I can dismiss with a wave of my hand; fine. But it’s still a belief system and can be named. I propose the blazingly obvious one: Christianity.
Because words have meaning, and you are not using a clear meaning but rather engaging in obscurantism, that is, the obfuscation of reality in order to not have to confront it. Or to use a bit of humor, if the world was people liked to claim, it would be filled with rich men and good-looking women, but it ain’t.
Some people who would really like to change the definition to their liking want it made out differently. That does not change the reality behind it.
In any case, while I believe I could argue the case on Mormonism (either way), I don’t think that it’s worth the digression here.
I wanted to reply as well to this post by begbert2:
“And it’s not about whether peer pressure is making us need to label Mr. X’s belief system; the OP is asking us to categorize it. There are those who think it doesn’t qualify as Christianity for various silly reasons I can dismiss with a wave of my hand; fine. But it’s still a belief system and can be named. I propose the blazingly obvious one: Christianity.”
The problem here is that this is not what Christianity teaches, and for that matter the beliefs as described are not what Jesus taught people to do because Jesus’ teachings were rather clear on the primacy and importance of God. The man or woman described by the OP might be good, or smart, but is not specifically Christian by what the word actually means. This is a different meaning that, while it might be more congenial to some, is not the correct one. Note that the Christian creeds were, and are, not a statement of the moral life, but rather a statement of faith. The Bible was put together to educate Christians on the right way to live after they have been converted. insofar as it goes, if any non-Christians gain some betterment or wisdom from it, so much the better. But that was never the point.
A believer might not live up to the moral teachings very well, and I know of precisely zero who did so perfectly, but he is a Christian still. A pagan, or Buddhist, or Satanist, or atheist might live up to all of them; still, he is not a Christian. If one is says, “I am a Christian,” he or she might be lying or mistaken, but that statement has meaning only because it refers to a specific identity, not a feeling or ideal.
What, did something I say give you the impression that I was trying to do any such thing?
Seriously, could you re-read the passage of mine you quoted in your post? I’m drawing an obvious contrast between the two, and it has nothing to do with their relative degrees of silliness.
But one more example, to drive the point home: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They were given a label by outsiders: “Mormons.” Why did any non-Mormon bother to give them a label at all? I hope the answer is obvious, and that’s my point.
No, the OP does not stipulate that Mr.X’s belief system requires a category or a label. Whether or not it does is one of the questions to be answered here. I am answering it in the negative.
You are arbitrarily selecting an arbitrary subset of Christianity (the part you’re familiar with and consider normalized) and then arbitrarily selecting a further subset of that Christianity’s beliefs and arbitrarily deciding that that particular subset is “what Christianity teaches”. And you’re making this selection based entirely on whether it supports your argument.
A case could be made that christianity (and Jesus) teaches that you should give 10% of your income to the church. This is not a statement of faith; it’s a statement of a moral life. There are myriad other teachings of Jesus and Christianity that are instructions about behavior, not faith: the ten commandments, for another example. There are myriad others, stacks upon stack of teachings, taught by christianity.
Of course, it wouldn’t be too hard to find Christians that do not obey all of these teachings and yet still call themselves, and are considered, Christians. There are many Christians that do not pay tithing. There are many Christians that lie in court. There are many Christians that covet their neighbor’s wife. There are many Christians that have lost their faith in God and Jesus. And yet they don’t stop being Christians; at worst they are bad Christians, and usually not even that. They’re usually just called Christians.
You are arguing that conventional christianity is substantively different from Jediism. You’re attempting to demonstrate this by denigrating Jediism with various dismissive terms, but everything you’re saying about it applies to Christianity too.
You’re trying to do special pleading. I’m not buying it.
The only “contrasts” you’ve drawn are attempts to highlight the silliness of Jediism. That’s literally all you’ve provided.
…For good reason, because Jediism, as cited, is in fact an ethos. And, as an ethos, it’s not substantively different from Christianity. They’re based around different things, sure: Jediism is based on the displayed behavior and principles of the fictional Jedi, and Christianity is based on the displayed behavior and principles of an entirely mythologized character possibly based loosely on one Yeshua Bar Yosef.
Honestly the only real differences between them (aside from the expected differences in doctrine) are size and age. And level of institutional corruption, I suppose, though given another two thousand years you might see Jediism would turn to the dark side too, so to speak.
The answer is obvious, but it’s not what you think it is. The answer is “Because ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ is too long to say repeatedly”. Had they called themselves something simple, like Scientology did, then outsiders would have referred to them by the simple name they chose.
This fact doesn’t support any point you’re trying to make.
Which is absurd. What’s so wrong about his beliefs that makes them unworthy of labeling? What makes a slightly tweaked version of his beliefs require one?
His belief system can be given a name, whether you special plead otherwise or not. Beyond that, his belief system is explicitly a variant of Christianity. And you know what we call variants of Christianity? Christianity.
No, I’m making that argument because that’s literally how Christianity defined itself. Still does.
If a group of people get together and declare themselves the Bowling Club and say, as their credo, that “Bowling is the Best Sport and We All Bowl”, and then at some later date another bunch of people get together and claim to totally be in the Bowling Club, but they don’t bowl and think that bowling is ‘rather nice’ … well, they’re not part of the Bowling Club are they?
Just curious - who are these masters of Christianity again? Back 1700 years ago you could more or less identify them, but things have gotten a bit more complicated since.
Sigh. Let’s roll tape one more time, with bolding of the key parts:
Labels are very helpful for things you encounter on a regular basis. You don’t need labels for things you’ve never heard of.
Can I ask what dismissive terms I used?
Except that the difference in size was exactly what I provided. You quoted me doing so. But if you won’t even read the parts of my posts that you quote, then we can’t have a very meaningful discussion.
Well, why on earth would anybody ever need to say either one? Why would anyone need to refer to them in any way, by any name?
Oh that’s right: because there are a lot of them. If there were only 23 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the world, the term ‘Mormon’ would be unknown to us.
Christianity in the modern era has begun to have two distinct meanings. There is Christianity the religion, and Christianity the lifestyle or self-identifier.
If one does not believe Jesus to be a real historical figure, they can still self-identify as a Christian, and even belong to a Christian community, but I don’t see how they could be considered religiously Christian. A religion requires an object of worship. If Jesus didn’t exist, then who or what are they worshipping?
Whether you “need” to label something is utterly and completely irrelevant and always has been. The question is whether one can label something. To which the answer is “yes”.
Sure!
You called Jediism a “fandom”. It’s not one. I linked a page listing the tenets of the belief system. You called it a fandom in an attempt to diminish it and deny what it is.
You called Jediism a “social clique”. It’s not one. Once again, linked page of tenets establshing a belief system. You called it a fandom in an attempt to diminish it and deny what it is.
You said that Jediism “wouldn’t interest anybody outside a small circle of friends”, which was either a derogatory way of saying it’s stupid, or a derogatory way of saying it’s small (which I’ll get to in a moment).
If we remove your slurs, you’ve said nothing at all beyond ‘I don’t wanna admit it can be labeled!’
But size is utterly irrelevant. It’s a distinction without a difference. It utterly doesn’t matter.
Small religions are still religions. Things that have just been invented can be labeled - it’s not uncommon for the creator to include a label in the initial description of the thing, when only a single person knows what it is. Things that there are only a single one of can be labeled.
I mean, you mentioned Mormonism. The term “Mormonism” was coined back in 1831, back when there were less than a thousand members. (Whereas there are apparently 177,000 Jedi, giving it more members than Unitarian Universalism.) There doesn’t have to be a lot of people matching a label for them to be described with a label. Hell, there doesn’t have to be any - we can describe the traits without having the thing it describes on hand.
And seriously, you already know this. You’re just being dismissive of small or unitary religions because your argument depends on it.
If there were only nine members of the Supreme Court, the term “Supreme Court Justice” would be unknown to us.
Well, there’s always God. Many christians believe that God is a distinct individual from Jesus, and Mr. X might believe that God is real.
Also, it’s not entirely clear what Mr. X disbelieves about Jesus. If he just disbelieves that Jesus was an incarnated person on earth, he might believe that Jesus had a spiritual existence that the stories were based on. He might believe that there were other legitimately inspired preachers whose tales were amalgamated into the Jesus character. Heck, he might believe that Jesus existed on an alien planet and tales of him were transplanted here, with the details changed to match the then-present times. Or some combination of the above.
Some may have seen this before. “CHRISTIANITY:The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.” I grok that.
Biblical texts are fun because we can find passages to support any idea or prejudice we want. Taking the words literally is insane. Interpreting the words grants infinite freedom to espouse whatever. We can thus define ourselves or others as “saved” or not, and if folks yonder don’t believe exactly as we do, they’re open for harassment unto slaughter. What, you don’t accept the 2011 Peristaltic Synod’s final proclamation? DIE, Satanist!
That’s the tradition. I’ll skip any forgiveness stuff, thanks. Sure, seeking forgiveness works better than begging permission. Don’t ask for permission to stone infidels or rob heathens - just do it.
Credal Christianity is still a thing, and the creeds are actually more or less unchanged. It’s fairly easy to ask who is involved. Also, we’re talking at least 1,960 years at this point. The point, however, is that a group of people clearly and deliberately adopted a label for their beliefs. Trying to apply the label to people who do not share those beliefs is just bad communication.
I disagree with this, at least in part. If a group adopts a clear statement of their identity and chooses a particular name, it is usually polite to use it, at least if they have not been obnoxious about it. It is wrong to expect other people to go out of their way, or demand language changes, but apart from that, eh? If there were only 23 CJCLDS, sure, whatever.
