It does seem like the desire to speak to ‘what Christians believe’ is a desire to create a generalization about 'em. What’s wrong with saying that their only unifying characteristic is a belief in the divinity of Yoshua Ben Yoseph, and the rest is a matter of individual difference?
Most, if you go by Poly’s and Siege’s definitions.
Problem being that, outside of this message board, I know very few Chrstians willing to abide by this, as evidenced by the number of political causes that use it as a label. hell, I have experience of Christian food service companies, Christian mortgages, Christian medical clinics, etc. If some Christians stand by one generalization without anyone actively countering them (in the politics and media, not here on this board), can you blame the non-Christian opposition for using it as well?
What you’ll get is more people getting pissy that you’re generalizing, claiming that they are Christians who revere Jesus as a teacher, but not as a divinity. The term seems to be so stretched that there really is no such creature as a Christian, because none of them can come up with a universally applicable definition.
How so? I’m not taking offense, just wondering what it is we’ve said that gave rise to that comment, and what you may mean by making it.
I don’t see a problem with that, but probably because I’m coming from a Jewish perspective. If there are two Jews in the room, there are three opinions.
If Christians want to quibble over what tenets of belief are required for their particular sects, more power to 'em. I see Christianity as an aggregate of individuals, some of who believe what you say, some of whom do not. I don’t think it’s right to ignore those who do not simply because they don’t fit into your model.
Yes, I can.
No matter how vocal a minority, it remains our job to properly abstract a reality from the whole. It may be easier to look at the wacko fundies and take their behavior as the ‘universal characteristic’ of Christians, but it’s simply false to facts.
In the end (and the beginning too) It’s impossible to speak to the fundamental nature of all of modern Christianity, besides a belief in the divinity/leadership of J. I do believe that fact, coupled with self-identification would yield the most accurate definition of Christianity.
Or, possibly to make Gobear go insane: During some of the massive gay pride parades of past years, there was a small but vocal minority which really pushed the envelope on public sexuality, risque behavior, etc… Now, just because it was easier, should we have taken them as the valid representation of the group and said that all gays are leather wearing perverts who have no conception of modesty?
What is a gay man? A man who likes having sex with other men. Can we really say anything else about him, without knowing him pesonally? No, not really.
What is a Christian? Someone who believes in the divinity/leadership of Yoshua Ben Yoseph. Can we really say anything else about him, without knowing him personally? No, not really.
Before someone brings up the “But homosexuality is not a choice!” red herring, it doesn’t matter. In either case you are focusing on one facet of a person’s life, be it volitional or not, and attempting to label their other behaviors from that one starting point. If you feel like it, change the example of ‘gay man’ to ‘person who likes to eat ice cream’. (obviously changing the next part too, as not all people who are naturally drawn to ice cream like homosexual sex ;))
Heh. Sorry about that. I was multitasking (and doing a crappy job of it).
What I meant to say is that you two appear to be followers of christ, and not christians, as defined by the vast majority of 21st century christians. I have said this before and I believe you took offense by it, but I stand by my statement. You basically follow two tenets of your faith, and don’t take the bible literally, and also work very hard at undermining interpretations of the bible that speak against gays, etc.
I don’t consider you (or Siege) to be christians except in the absolute loosest definition of the word, i.e., followers of christ. There’s a huge difference.
Fact is, I rarely consider anyone who doesn’t live by the letter of the bible to be a christian. If that’s the manual for the faith, in my opinion you must follow it in order to be in the club. If you don’t, you may be a fan of christ, or a follower of christ, but a christian you ain’t. (Hoping you take this as the compliment it was meant to be).
Take the set of all humans, which is, in my opinion identical to the set of those loved by Christ.
A subset of those humans call themselves Christians.
Within that set are subsets:
Those who consider it a club, of which they are members.
Those who consider it a good way to meet chicks, so they pretend membership.
Those who consider it a good way to meet guys, so they pretend membership.
Those who inherited membership, but have no other connection with it.
Those who consider it politically useful, so maintain membership.
Those who are compelled by familial and social pressure to maintain membership.
Those who are insufficiently intelligent to realize that there are choices other than being a member.
Those who are afraid to be without a readily identifiable peer group.
OK, that’s enough for a while.
You notice that we haven’t gotten down to a division based on theological grounds yet? We can’t even assume that all these subgroups are members of the same Christian Church. And to be bleakly honest, I am not sure we haven’t already accounted for a fair percentage of the subset that calls themselves Christians.
Now, quick, what belief do all those people share?
They believe that they are Christians.
I have no authority to deny that belief, because it seems to me that to Christ, they are all Christians.
Tris
No, you won’t, because those people aren’t following a religion based on the life of Jesus. Belief in the supernatural is a defining characteristic of religion. If they follow some other religion, but revere Jesus as a teacher, then they’re a member of that religion. If they don’t beleive in the supernatural at all, then their agnostics or atheists, not Christians. It’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people who identify as Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, in one way or another.
Being inclusive or denoting a large group of people does not make a word meaningless. If we were talking about Shzyzyzifaxisism, then we’d be talking about a meaningless word.
This doesn’t have to be any more complicated then looking up the definition for Christian (n) in a dictionary.
But aren’t you attempting to define their religion for them then? Why is reformation, schism, new-dogma an impossibility? Why do they have to, essentially, be fundies in order to be Christians?
Again, coming from my upbringing: Some Jews belive we should follow every mitzvah, some think it’s a personal call. Some think there is a real God somewhere, some are just there for the community, etc, etc, etc… And yet, they’re all Jews.
I think you may need to stop trying to categorize most Christians, and let them sort themselves out.
/$.02
sob
The baby George Orwell is weaping.
Well, you’ve sort of made my point. They can’t define themselves, they have as many definitions as they do christians, and no one tells *any of them * they’re wrong. What’s to stop me from adding another definition to the mix? After all, they’ve made it *their * business to make it my business by infiltrating nearly every aspect of American life (whether we want it or not!). If I wasn’t forced to reckon with it on some level or another nearly every day, I’d consider butting out. But…as it stands, I have as much right to comment, define, ridicule, giggle, and rant as any cross-carrying christian!
I see nothing wrong with this. Let individual Christian sects fight it out over who is the ‘most Christian’ of them. Works save you, no, faith saves you, no, grace saves you, etc, etc, etc… If someone believes in/follows the teachings/example of the man who they call Jesus Christ, I’d don’t figure I have much right to classify them other than by their personal wishes.
I suppose too this is because there is no, (to my admittedly rather ignorant field of knowledge) universal rite of acceptance into the Christian community. That is to say, the Jewish religion includes a conversion process which is pretty much the same between the sects. I am not aware of any parralel with Christianity. So I see no real reason to exclude membership to the club. Then again, it’s their club, so they can decide, I suppose.
Complicated issue, from where I sit.
Careful with those pronouns, and those generalizations. All Christians haven’t done that, some have. Maybe the Christians who do that, you can call names (I’ve seen ‘Pharises’ used more times on the Dope than I’ve ever read it anywhere, ever.) But the others? Perhaps even comprising the majority of all Christians?
Yes, but that doesn’t eliminate the burden of creating true statements. The Christians who try to rule our lives are schmucks, no two ways about it. They should all be forced by each major religion (and the minor ones) to follow 'em for a year. This year, buddhism. next year, satanism. After that, we’ll be worshiping Odin. ~grins~
But I digress.
The Christians who don’t try to rule your life, well, they don’t fit into your generalization. I think they’re the silent majority, and although to a degree (to steal a phrase) they’ve allowed their religion to become hijacked (which I can see an analogy with Gobear’s shoah argument)… they’re still not personifications of any particular belief.
I’ve met some very kind, loving people who happen to be Christians. Surely they don’t cease to exist as Christians simply because some loudmouth asshole wants to ban the teaching of evolution in the classroom?
I don’t think I said “all christians”. I said christians. It certainly isn’t Buddhists I’m having a hard time with in this country!
That’s not much comfort, considering that, in the US at least, the other side owns the term Christian. While i agree that the decentralized nature of the religion makes it difficult to generalize with any accuracy, it is impossible to ignore the political implications of the ownership of the term by some very bad people. I have to assume that this is **gobear’s ** beef- I know that I for one don’t care at all what you believe…until you try to use force of law to make me believe it.
So, what do we do? Do those Christians that don’t feel they are represented in public dialog just go along to avoid schism? Or do they fight? Or do they start to call themselves something different?
And how are those of us that feel disenfranchised due to their actions to respond?
With a few exceptions, they come onto message boards and whine about anything negative thing gobear says about Christianity.
With the Political Power of the Religious Right obvious in the last election, with the headlong rush to preserve the “sacred institution of marriage” from homos, with a President who embraces Jerry Falwell and not Jim Wallis, with a Supreme Court Justice who states that Catholic judges who oppose the dealth penalty should resign, I must ask why you consider the Right Wing the vocal minority FinnAgain? And even if they are a minority, they are the leaders and that makes a difference because the “silent majority” lend the weight of their numbers and make the strident Right Wing appear even more powerful.
Unless and until the progressive wing of the churches step up, it’s as if they don’t exist.
Around 76.5% of this country is Christian. About 50% is conservative. Therefore, roughly speaking, at least 26.5% of this country is a non-conservative Christian. This country has 293.7 million citizens, so there’s about 77,830,000 non-conservative Christians.
Clearly, only a tiny minority of that group comes onto message boards and complain when gobear insults all Christians. And how the fuck do you expect “progressive” churches to step up? Do you want to see a press release titled “Homosexuals Not Condemned to Hell” by the UCC? Do you think it would get as much press as Fred Phelps protesting the funeral of a gay 17-year old hospice-worker and animal-shelter volunteer who was beaten to death with sticks by a mob of homophobic idiots? Do you think it would get any press at all?
The reason that the nasty statements by Falwell, Dobson, et. al. get press is because their shocking and outrageous. The public image of Christianity in this country is controlled more by the media and manipulative politicians of all stripes then it is by the majority of believers. Saying that it’s as if a sizeable minority doesn’t exist because they’re not as loud is ridiculous.
DOH! That should be “at least,” not “about.”
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I thought that the UCC’s commercials to that effect were very well played, and should have been followed up on. I think that it struck up quite a bit of discussion, and if anything, could have been more direct in its statement.
You have to keep beating that drum, every day, nonstop- because the other side is relentless. And even if you don’t get the press you want, it will make a difference.
It’s a hell of a burden…until you consider the alternative.
:rolleyes:
Yes. I expect you do that and more. I’m happy that the Episcopal leadership is standing up to the African Bishops and the conservative wing here in the states. But it’s not enough. Falwell gets press not just because he’s loud, but because he gets personal phone calls from Presidents. If they didn’t invite him to their birthday parties, he wouldn’t be as prominent. He got that access because he and Robertson organized thousands of voters for Reagan/Bush and Bush the Lessor. Until the progressive church steps up and shows that people of faith aren’t necessarily for cutting welfare and going to war (what would Jesus think of that, I wonder), then The Religious Right will continue to define Christianity.