I’m not sure I buy that, particularly the first clause. Can you elaborate?
Define “Christ”.
That statement is based on the belief that absolute truth does exist, but humans are not allowed to understand this Truth at this time. So there does exist a perfect and inarguable definition of “Christ” and “Christianity”, but no one can speak it today. That knowledge is reserved for God and God alone.
This stands as religious dogma, a precept that must be believed through faith, because none can explain it and (most importantly) it can never be explained. This is different from, say, evolution, where there are things yet to be discovered … there is nothing about evolution that cannot be explained or discovered, thus it is not dogmatic.
Without faith, there is no understanding of faith.
Of what use is a word with a secret definition?
(bolding mine)Why not?
Bull. That’s like saying that I cannot understand what Scientology is unless I take all their courses.
Czarcasm beat me to it.
Your posts #13 and #122 are evidence that you accepted that there is a definition. IMO an inadequate definition, but a definition nevertheless. If you have changed your mind you should say so.
Not that a question such as OP is a matter of weighing evidence. It is a matter of weighing the coherence of rival premises where the facts may be entirely hypothetical. For example the question: “Should a person who eats a pound of meant every day be be considered a vegetarian?" has nothing to do with evidence of the existence of self-styled vegetarians who actually do eat a pound of meat a day; the set of such people could be zero.
If your definition of Christianity applies in principle to all cases of self-identification then you must even accept that someone who ate only meat was a vegetarian if he said he was. Similarly you must accept that someone who denies the historical existence of Christ and the truth of any of Christ’s teachings is a Christian if he says he is.
I claim that meaningful intellectual discourse would be impossible in a world with an anything-goes approach to the character of definitions such as you endorse.
Furthermore I claim that the goal of this thread can be accomplished, and that at least part of the accomplishment consists of the premise that Christ was the foremost historical human teacher of sacred truths. That is quite expansive, as it includes Trinitarians without ruling out Deists and Unitarians, but not so expansive as to include Muslims, for whom Mohammed is the foremost teacher of sacred truths.
My mind has not been changed, but you keep skipping the part where I say that such a definition, or any common definition, cannot and will not be acceptable to those that are religious, for to accept a common definition for “Christian” is to accept that their particular religion/sect is, well…common. The fact that I accept the common dictionary definition may only mean that I find all flavors of Christianity to be common-not one stands out to me as being more evidence-based than any other.
And it excludes those sects that teach that Jesus wasn’t a human being, but a manifestation of their god, and that he actually existed since the beginning of time.
First of all it does change; sometimes it’s used to mean the actual person who lived 2000-ish years ago (if he did), sometimes it’s used to refer to the mythical version, sometimes to some composite version, sometimes it’s used to refer to more exotic things like “an alien who came to Earth and started a religion”.
And more importantly, even if the term “Christ” never changed meaning the word Christian certainly does; we see right here in this thread people disagreeing over what it means.
Even assuming that was true, that’s indistinguishable from there being no such truth and no such definitions. So it’s pointless.
In other words it’s pure nonsense. Indefensible nonsense; you are just trying to make the fact that you can’t support what you are saying seem all deep and profound instead of merely meaning your claims are baseless.
A statement that is wrong, and an attempt to shut down all discussion. There’s nothing in the slightest about faith that is profound or hard to understand, and certainly nothing that gives it some special understanding of the truth.
(post#187 page#4)
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
My mind has not been changed,
[/quote]
So there is a definition, and, since you have passed up a chance to demur, the definition is cited in posts #13 and #122: a Christian is anyone who says he is a Christian.
Therefore you accept the absurd consequence that a person who denies that Christ has ever existed and denies that the Bible contains any truth may reasonably be defined as a Christian. And unless the rules differ you must also accept that a person who eats only meat may reasonably be defined as a vegetarian.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
but you keep skipping the part where I say that such a definition, or any common definition, cannot and will not be acceptable to those that are religious, for to accept a common definition for “Christian” is to accept that their particular religion/sect is, well…common. The fact that I accept the common dictionary definition may only mean that I find all flavors of Christianity to be common-not one stands out to me as being more evidence-based than any other.
[/quote]
I wanted to get the definition issue cleared up first.
I doubt there has ever been a Christian sect which did not accept common ground with one or more other sects. Ground common to all Christian sects would constitute a definition of the Christian religion. I believe it is reasonable to suggest as I have that such common ground may at least be found in perception Christ as being a preeminent figure. That does not mean complete agreement must exist on the structure of Christ’s nature or the content of his character.
(post #188 page#4)
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
And it excludes those sects that teach that Jesus wasn’t a human being, but a manifestation of their god, and that he actually existed since the beginning of time.
[/quote]
Allowing Christ to have appeared human rather than to have been human would conform to the requirement that he be the foremost teacher of scared truths, and is no obstacle in the search for a definition. Belief that Christ is coeternal with the godhead is a tenet accepted by most Christians since the Patristics. It is neither a required by common definition, nor disqualifying.
What about believing in turning the other cheek? Wouldn’t that be part of what defines “Christian”?
Huh?
(post#190 page#4)
(post#192 page#4)
I guess another way of putting it would be to allow God to disguise himself as a man, without being truly human in the orthodox Trinitarian sense.
Dude, you’re making exactly zero sense.
Try harder.
Dude, seriously. Communication is a partnership; when it fails you can’t blame it all on the other person. Would you mind restating what you’re talking about? Pretty please?
(post #196 page #4)
[QUOTE=andros]
Dude, seriously. Communication is a partnership; when it fails you can’t blame it all on the other person. Would you mind restating what you’re talking about? Pretty please?
[/QUOTE]
I have already restated what I was talking about once, in post #195.
Ohhhhh…kay. In that case, I’ll go back to lurking, and won’t trouble you with my clearly inferior intellect.
I just figured you might want to, yanno, get your point across. But hey, if you’re only posting for your own pleasure, good on ya.
Lurk away. That would suit me better than any more of your lectures and reprimands.
Another vote for say what? There was no such requirement for the former in the Old Testament(you know-the place where all those messianic requirements were officially listed), and the latter may not be doublespeak…but it might as well be.