You mean like what Zeus used to do when he wanted to go slumming to see what was going on? The difference is, Zeus never claimed to be all-knowing, so he actually learned things on his little ventures.
(post#200 page#4)
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
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.
[/quote]
Before I can address this what is “former” what is “latter” what brought up the OT reference and what, exactly, are you referring to as “doubletalk”? And sure, if there is anything in the OT “messianic requirements” which you think might support your argument and undercut mine let’s hear about them.
My original stipulation was:
(post #186) “that Christ was the foremost historical human teacher of sacred truths.”
In the first part of your reply you gave a case which that definition did not cover:
(post #188) “And it excludes those sects that teach that Jesus wasn’t a human being, but a manifestation of their god”
I amended my definition to include the type of Christ I think you were referring to :
(post #190) “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.”
In post #192 Monty said “Huh?” to this:
“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.”
so I rephrased:
(post #193) “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.”
I am not sure how much longer I will feel like replying. I’ll stick around a bit longer before declaring myself the winner and retiring, though.
Ahh! The George Aiken strategy.
Did Zeus ever disguise himself as a human? The only two I recall hearing about were the eagle and the swan. But yeah, why not a Christian God of the Disguise?
Thanks, I couldn’t remember who I had stolen that from.
The typo below is in a critical enough place to need correction even this long after posting.
Change to read “has ever been dissent”.
Is WheatCat being forced to defend Christianity first? The OP question is about what makes a Christian, something non-Christians cannot answer, as correctly pointed out by Czarcasm. Faith is included, and you have to have faith to understand. In logical terms, it called the fallacy of “begging the question” … but that’s allowed in religion [wolfish grin] the unique is illogical.
I do not interpret anything in this thread to require a defense of Christianity. I disagree that a non-Christian must be unable to answer OP. I also disagree that circular argument is ever permissible. I do not understand why something unique must be illogical.
That’s just a bit twisted around. What I have been pointing out is that non-Christians can probably reach a consensus on the definition specifically because they stand outside and have no emotional/psychological investment in any particular sect. It’s the insiders, those who have been indoctrinated into a particular religion/sect, that cannot agree upon a common definition for reasons previously stated. Christianity is a strong brand name that has fallen into public domain, and each religion/sect has grabbed it and defined it to best fit their particular flavor of worship.
It would seem to me, that being a Christian one would follow"all" the teachings and way of life that Jesus said, and did. Even the words that states;" Take up your cross and follow me"
One can say they are one thing than act another way!
But I don’t own a cross…should I make one? Or will Amazon deliver it? And where should I follow? To Heaven? The grave? IKEA?
That “take up your cross” bit is a metaphor, yes? So we’re once again back to wildly differing interpretations of what it means. I’m not sure that helps clarify things any.
.
The NT also says,“Faith without works is dead”.
I know this is what I have quoted before but according to the Psalmist (he called all the people he was talking to0 ,gods and sons of god. Jesus used this as an example of why he called God his father.
A fact is the truth. What really is,both by religion and any other thing. The fact is that Jesus wrote nothing and we take the word of some other humans. Because someone says God said something doesn’t make it fact, just belief in that person.
You first have to prove there is a heaven. and there is a God, or it is just your belief.
Good grief. Communication isn’t your forte, is it?
No-the only thing anyone has to do in this thread is to state what they think it takes to make a Christian.
This thread isn’t about whether the Bible is factual or whether heaven exists, whether there is a god, whether Jesus really was the messiah, or opinions about the truth of any particular dogma. This thread is asking how to describe what type of beliefs define Christianity, and what beliefs/sects are (in)consistent with the umbrella term “Christian”, and if it’s even possible to have a definition that everyone would agree on.
After re-reading this It is just your beliefs and you are entitled to them, but Belief is not fact!
Not the topic of this thread!