Incidently, here's a rather dated overview about believes in the US. All ranked nicely for acceptance of homosexuality. And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
"Holiness"? Really...?
I've heard of probably 9/10th of them.
The only ones I haven't are Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Holiness (both of them), Restorationist, COGIC, and Pietist.
It is interesting seeing the spread. Not one mainline Protestant group below 50%. Not one Evangelical Protestant group above 50%. Could it be that casting out a sizable proportion of the population could affect your congregation size?! MADNESS!
And Catholics all over the place depending how orthodox they want to be.
It also has Friends in there.
The question is odd as well. Would you call heterosexuality a "way of life"? Seems a bit much to call your sexual orientation your way of life.
'Friends' is another way of saying 'Quaker'.
Indeed, the word orthodox is interesting. What is means is those who are more accepting of gays are less in line with (the original) Christian teachings, doesn't it.
It's interesting you bring up science. What about interpreting the bible is analogous to science?
Do you think we should care what the bible says (more than any other text)? Why?
Both should be following an established set of procedural standards. The scientific method, in however simple or complex a form it is summarizes, essentially boils down to questioning, drawing conclusions from experimentation, and replicating those results. Interpreting the Bible should ideally follow the same historical method and source criticism that one would apply to other texts and historical artifacts. I'm not saying that the methods used for each are the same, but both should be systematic.
I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at with the second question. Could you clarify or rephrase that? The meaningfulness ascribed to something (whether a belief, work of art, relationship, political affiliation, etc.) is a very personal type of emotion, so I don't think anyone can presume to to say what someone should or should not care about. If you're asking, on a broader scale, if I think the implications of a particular religion being true would mean people should care about it more, the answer would still essentially be that it's very personal. What I would expect is that those who believe it would be passionate and excited to share that belief, just as we are excited to share other things in our life that we ascribe meaning to...like Baldur's Gate. The issue obviously becomes when someone shifts from sharing that passion to attempting to impose it.
Did that at least partially address what you were looking for, or was I off base?
@Kamigoroshi, I expected that something like this would be raised, hence my comment about opening a can of worms! Go back to my line of thought regarding the consensus of thought in other fields for a moment. If we were to look at the range of views among Egyptologists as one example, most would agree one many key aspects of Egyptian history and culture. They would disagree in some specifics, perhaps in the manner in which the pyramids were constructed. But then along comes a small number of people who claim that a few pieces of data should actually be interpreted as evidence of aliens building the pyramids. This obviously represents a real case, and few have any qualms in saying that those people shouldn't be considered true Egyptologists or historians.
The core Christian beliefs I listed were absolutely debated following the death of Jesus, but they emerged not by a random process, but rather consideration of varying types of evidence, all contextualized in what was known of the history and culture of that time. That's the reason they have been the core of the religion for so long without further serious debate, and why Christians should have every right to say that groups who deviate from these should not be termed Christian.
(I don't mean the following as a further argument for this position, but it made me recall an article I saw years ago about a girl's family suing the Boy Scouts of American because they wouldn't allow her to join. My thought at the time was simple: if it's a group that has come together, defined its collective beliefs and set those as a standard for being a part of it, they have every right to do so, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those beliefs.)
Again, I see this tying back to a balance of procedural standards, evidence in context and consistency in interpretation. Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and, yes, the Westboro Baptists, do violate these in my opinion, even if agreeing in other non-essential areas. In my opinion they can be said to outside the bounds of the Christian faith. I'd say the same about the Ahmadiyyas in Islam or particular strains of syncretic Buddhism here in Thailand that resemble animism far more than the teachings of Buddha.
Incidently, here's a rather dated overview about believes in the US. All ranked nicely for acceptance of homosexuality. And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
"Holiness"? Really...?
I've heard of probably 9/10th of them.
The only ones I haven't are Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Holiness (both of them), Restorationist, COGIC, and Pietist.
It is interesting seeing the spread. Not one mainline Protestant group below 50%. Not one Evangelical Protestant group above 50%. Could it be that casting out a sizable proportion of the population could affect your congregation size?! MADNESS!
And Catholics all over the place depending how orthodox they want to be.
It also has Friends in there.
The question is odd as well. Would you call heterosexuality a "way of life"? Seems a bit much to call your sexual orientation your way of life.
'Friends' is another way of saying 'Quaker'.
Indeed, the word orthodox is interesting. What is means is those who are more accepting of gays are less in line with (the original) Christian teachings, doesn't it.
Not sure this is very helpful. First off, Orthodox is both a self-label, and we do not know the details of early Christianity. We can probably say that being less accepting is more in line with the Christians teaching of the last 500-1000 years, but before that it becomes hard to tell. There is just no consensus on what the original teachings are.
The core elements of Christianity that I think virtually all would accept would be the divinity of Jesus, his ministry and its specific call to love god and other people, his crucifixion, and his resurrection as captured in the Nicene Creed. I know that's opening another can of worms, but I'm fine with that!
@Isandir thanks for setting out all your arguments so clearly. In relation to this statement though I wonder whether you are giving enough account to context and the changing times we live in (ironically, given your views on that ). I don't dispute that your list of core elements was how Christianity was originally defined, but I'm not sure it's any longer reasonable to stick to that.
There's already been a few mentions of groups that are commonly termed Christian, which do not necessarily accept the divinity of Jesus, but I agree they are relatively marginal. However, if we look at belief in the resurrection there are an awful lot of Christians who do not accept the literal teaching of the bible on that. The BBC commissioned a survey in 2017 (see here for data tables) that covered this and suggested that only a minority of Christians in the UK accepted this teaching. If you consider only active Christians, there was a majority, but not a large one.
Most of those who don't believe in the literal resurrection, do believe in it's spiritual value - this article covers the argument about this. I'm sure many of those who take this line would passionately defend their right to call themselves Christians.
If you want to more narrowly define a group that accepts the above core elements I think you would probably need a different term to just 'Christian'. Alternatively, you could accept the idea of a broad church and a more general description of what it means to be Christian. To my mind you could say that covers anyone who accepts the ministry of Jesus and his call to love both God and other people. I think that's the true core element of the religion - the other elements are simply about what people believe, rather than the much more important issue of how they should relate to other people and the world around them.
Incidently, here's a rather dated overview about believes in the US. All ranked nicely for acceptance of homosexuality. And while statistics are never accurate anyway, it's still mildly interesting to look at. If only to look at all the branches of Christianity popping up.
Uh... I can't be the only one here who probably never even heard about a good ²/³ of them, can I?
"Holiness"? Really...?
I've heard of probably 9/10th of them.
The only ones I haven't are Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Holiness (both of them), Restorationist, COGIC, and Pietist.
It is interesting seeing the spread. Not one mainline Protestant group below 50%. Not one Evangelical Protestant group above 50%. Could it be that casting out a sizable proportion of the population could affect your congregation size?! MADNESS!
And Catholics all over the place depending how orthodox they want to be.
It also has Friends in there.
The question is odd as well. Would you call heterosexuality a "way of life"? Seems a bit much to call your sexual orientation your way of life.
'Friends' is another way of saying 'Quaker'.
Indeed, the word orthodox is interesting. What is means is those who are more accepting of gays are less in line with (the original) Christian teachings, doesn't it.
Not sure this is very helpful. First off, Orthodox is both a self-label, and we do not know the details of early Christianity. We can probably say that being less accepting is more in line with the Christians teaching of the last 500-1000 years, but before that it becomes hard to tell. There is just no consensus on what the original teachings are.
But that's my whole point: all sides of the argument are claiming they have the correct interpretation. How do we know who is correct? @Isandir brought up science, but I don't know how that would work.
"Both should be following an established set of procedural standards. The scientific method, in however simple or complex a form it is summarizes, essentially boils down to questioning, drawing conclusions from experimentation, and replicating those results. Interpreting the Bible should ideally follow the same historical method and source criticism that one would apply to other texts and historical artifacts. I'm not saying that the methods used for each are the same, but both should be systematic."
A "historical method" is not science in my view. But indeed, I don't see how you could use science to find out what interpretation of the bible is true.
"I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at with the second question. Could you clarify or rephrase that? The meaningfulness ascribed to something (whether a belief, work of art, relationship, political affiliation, etc.) is a very personal type of emotion, so I don't think anyone can presume to to say what someone should or should not care about. If you're asking, on a broader scale, if I think the implications of a particular religion being true would mean people should care about it more, the answer would still essentially be that it's very personal. What I would expect is that those who believe it would be passionate and excited to share that belief, just as we are excited to share other things in our life that we ascribe meaning to...like Baldur's Gate. The issue obviously becomes when someone shifts from sharing that passion to attempting to impose it."
For example, should we care about what the bible says about morality? Why? Should we care about arguments in the vein of "marriage laws should be in accordance to the bible"? Why? EDIT: Care any more than let's say Harry Potter books. In other words, do you think the bible has value other than "regular" historical or literary analysis?
@Ammar I don't agree, but I can clearly see the reasoning you followed and I appreciate the response. A few pages back, I did actually post the core tenets of Crisitanity, based solely on Jesus' teaching. If you don't want to look for the post, I can see if I can dig it up later.
I don't understand the issue some people seem to have defining "Chrisitanity". We are called Christians because we follow Christ. If you belong to a group that flat out doesn't follow His teachings, it doesn't matter waht you call yourself, you aren't a Christian. Interpretation is one thing, but calling a chicken a duck makes no sense.
@Kamigoroshi, I expected that something like this would be raised, hence my comment about opening a can of worms!
Nothing wrong with opening cans of worms as far as I am concerned. But maybe that's just my inner aqua-terrarist speaking. Always gotta have more live food for my lizzies, scorpies and fishies.
@Ammar I don't agree, but I can clearly see the reasoning you followed and I appreciate the response. A few pages back, I did actually post the core tenets of Crisitanity, based solely on Jesus' teaching. If you don't want to look for the post, I can see if I can dig it up later.
I don't understand the issue some people seem to have defining "Chrisitanity". We are called Christians because we follow Christ. If you belong to a group that flat out doesn't follow His teachings, it doesn't matter waht you call yourself, you aren't a Christian. Interpretation is one thing, but calling a chicken a duck makes no sense.
@ThacoBell you've consistently said that the main message from Christ was to love God and love thy neighbor. I don't understand why someone who follows Christ, believes in that message and behaves accordingly, should not be described as a Christian.
In your example you're comparing two different sorts of terms for creatures. 'Chicken' is a specific species, but 'duck' is a common term used to group together a wide range of species. To my mind it would be reasonable to draw an analogy between that usage of 'duck' and 'Christian' - both embrace a wide variety of slightly different species, but with common characteristics that mean people find it helpful to group them together. To restrict which people are described as Christians would be akin to narrowing the definition of duck - for instance saying something like only mallards are true ducks and other species like eiders have to call themselves something different. I'm not sure that sort of approach would reduce confusion about what the term 'Christian' means.
@Ammar I don't agree, but I can clearly see the reasoning you followed and I appreciate the response. A few pages back, I did actually post the core tenets of Crisitanity, based solely on Jesus' teaching. If you don't want to look for the post, I can see if I can dig it up later.
I don't understand the issue some people seem to have defining "Chrisitanity". We are called Christians because we follow Christ. If you belong to a group that flat out doesn't follow His teachings, it doesn't matter waht you call yourself, you aren't a Christian. Interpretation is one thing, but calling a chicken a duck makes no sense.
@ThacoBell you've consistently said that the main message from Christ was to love God and love thy neighbor. I don't understand why someone who follows Christ, believes in that message and behaves accordingly, should not be described as a Christian.
In your example you're comparing two different sorts of terms for creatures. 'Chicken' is a specific species, but 'duck' is a common term used to group together a wide range of species. To my mind it would be reasonable to draw an analogy between that usage of 'duck' and 'Christian' - both embrace a wide variety of slightly different species, but with common characteristics that mean people find it helpful to group them together. To restrict which people are described as Christians would be akin to narrowing the definition of duck - for instance saying something like only mallards are true ducks and other species like eiders have to call themselves something different. I'm not sure that sort of approach would reduce confusion about what the term 'Christian' means. > > > > >
Don't even get me started about those darned mergansers.
I would prefer a rather broad definition of Christianity, on the grounds that it's a massive religion with dramatic variations in doctrine even if you choose a more limited definition. If you cut out the Mormons or the Unitarians, you're removing two groups who call themselves Christian while still keeping in denominations who disagree strongly with each other. There's a bigger difference between Protestants and Catholics more generally than between almost any of the smaller groups, and yet both Protestantism and Catholicism are considered to be under the Christian umbrella.
I'd say a Christian is someone who believes in God and believes in the teachings of Christ. The key components of Christianity are monotheism and the importance of Jesus.
Still, that leaves me with a question. What about someone who believes in God but views Jesus as a prophet instead of a divine figure? Because Islam also believes in God but holds that Jesus was a prophet instead of a divine figure, and I believe there are some sects of Judaism that view Jesus as a prophet of sorts.
In response to a few of the lines of thought regarding why Christianity shouldn't be defined more broadly in respect to core beliefs, particularly the resurrection, I think it would have to go back to two points. (Also note that I'm currently not defending the historicity of any particular event or claim, but rather indicating what the prevailing, agreed view has been in mainstream Christianity since the 4th century.)
The first is the exegesis of the text. Taken as a whole and in context, Christianity relies most heavily on a physical resurrection of Jesus, as it serves as the basis for the restoration of the humanity's broken relationship with god (part of which I mentioned in passing when referencing the exodus). Again, this conclusion captures the entire narrative flow of scripture and This is most strongly emphasized by Paul in I Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." The more literal translation is closer to emerging from an actual grave, and he goes on to reinforce this several times.
While I understand the conclusions of those quoted in the article you shared, @Grond0, you'll also note that their basis for this is simply their struggle to reconcile what is deemed a miracle with their prevailing worldview. Spong in particular has long been known within Christianity as someone who promotes a secular form of the religion, but bases this on incredulity rather than following the logical conclusions of what scripture claims when a systematic historical approach is applied to it.
The second point again goes right back to the right of any group, whether religious or secular, to define itself, regardless of whether they themselves are factually right or wrong in holding to that definition. I could claim to be Buddhist, as I share particular beliefs from that faith, but given that I don't believe in a cycle of rebirth, the bottom line is that I'm not Buddhist. I adopt a few political positions in line with the Republicans, and many more with the Democrats, but I'm ultimately not a party member of either, as I don't agree with the entirety of their core platforms.
Tying this together, the Nicene Creed was again meant to establish a common understanding of what it meant to be Christian, and it was accepted by most of the major groups of the time. Yes, there have always been some groups that did not accept it, but that does not mean they can then lay claim to the name. I think @Grond0 touched one suggestion: there should almost be a separate term to describe those who share some of the Christian philosophy but reject the traditional, core beliefs. @semiticgod, you raise a point that I think also ties back to the "pick and choose" problem. You indicate that a definition of Christian could be a person who believes in the teachings of Christ. Taking his teaching and his words to their logical conclusion based on the context, he claimed to be god.
I think perhaps @ThacoBell up to this point had been trying to distill Christianity to its core in the sense of what it means in respect to personal behavior, but perhaps the conversation was just focused on that side of it. I don't want to speak on your behalf @ThacoBell, but my hunch is that you'd likely agree to the core of Christianity resting on the resurrection. Is that correct?
@FinneousPJ, The historical method is not a science, but applied in the strict term, neither is psychology or sociology. It falls under the "soft sciences" as they do, and it represents a consistent approach that is applied by historians. This isn't saying that the historical method is foolproof and allows us to arrive at the single "true" interpretation. But again, the same can be said of psychology and sociology. Using the former as an example, a psychiatrist essentially follows a standard method of patient assessment, refers back to other cases, considers the patient context and draws a conclusion.
Does this mean that every patient is always diagnosed correctly? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate the field of psychiatry, and it still allows us to reach the most reasonable conclusions based on the existing evidence. That is precisely what the historical method and textual analysis intend to do. The argument I'm making is that simply picking a handful of verses from the Bible and declaring that they demonstrate a particular view completely throws out any kind of analytic methodology and utterly fails to consider context. That's not a consistent way to defend a position of any type.
If you're asking me if I personally believe that the Bible has value beyond any other historical document, the answer is yes. If you ask me the same about the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, the answer would also be yes. Again, I'm sensing that you're looking for something a bit deeper here, particularly in reference to marriage law. To address that directly, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) should not be used as the litmus for our laws, nor do I think it was intended to be.
On a side note, thanks @Grond0 for the compliment, though I often feel like I'm just rambling! The reason I at least try to be clear when tackling any topic of this type is that it's too easy to misinterpret what someone is saying, which leads right back to assumptions and animosity. People can disagree on all of this and still get along just fine.
If you're asking me if I personally believe that the Bible has value beyond any other historical document, the answer is yes.
Why?
I'm happy with looking at the wider context of the words in the book, but when you start arguing how some passages need to be taken with a historical grain of salt and others do not, how the book is historical if we ignore its historicity and so on, you're entering woo-woo territory.
Just for context my background is in hard science and engineering.
If you're asking me if I personally believe that the Bible has value beyond any other historical document, the answer is yes.
Why?
I'm happy with looking at the wider context of the words in the book, but when you start arguing how some passages need to be taken with a historical grain of salt and others do not, how the book is historical if we ignore its historicity and so on, you're entering woo-woo territory.
Just for context my background is in hard science and engineering.
Have you had to deal with people who don't think along those lines? If you have, do you just think they're idiots, or do you think that they just have a different way of thinking than you have? Do you think they should be ignored? Do you have empathy, or at least try to see things from the perspective of people who don't agree with you? I'm asking out of curiosity. You seem to think that your way of thinking is 100% correct and that is not as scientific as you seem to think. Science is always subject to change when new data is made available. There is not one scientific theory that is not subject to change at a moment's notice when new evidence is presented...
If you're asking me if I personally believe that the Bible has value beyond any other historical document, the answer is yes.
Why?
I'm happy with looking at the wider context of the words in the book, but when you start arguing how some passages need to be taken with a historical grain of salt and others do not, how the book is historical if we ignore its historicity and so on, you're entering woo-woo territory.
Just for context my background is in hard science and engineering.
Have you had to deal with people who don't think along those lines? If you have, do you just think they're idiots, or do you think that they just have a different way of thinking than you have? Do you think they should be ignored? Do you have empathy, or at least try to see things from the perspective of people who don't agree with you? I'm asking out of curiosity. You seem to think that your way of thinking is 100% correct and that is not as scientific as you seem to think. Science is always subject to change when new data is made available. There is not one scientific theory that is not subject to change at a moment's notice when new evidence is presented...
That's a lot of questions.
Yes, no, no, sometimes. Your criticism is exactly why I think science (as a method) is the best way we have to find out how the world works. When the evidence is presented the god of the bible is real and is how he is described in the book, I am willing to change my mind.
@Isandir it's interesting that you support the separation of Church and State. That's a view shared by most people in Western countries and I think reflects the view that there is more to life than religion. Fundamentalists are more likely to feel that the entire purpose of life is bound up with their religion and many do not support the separation of Church and State. I think the issue about the resurrection is somewhat akin to this. While belief in a physical resurrection would not normally be termed fundamentalist, it does seem to correlate quite strongly with fundamentalist views.
As I posted before, in Western societies a belief in the physical resurrection now seems to be a minority view of those who identify themselves as Christians. I agree with you that reflects a more general disinclination to believe in miracles, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from that. I think it reflects a more general evolution of how people think of religion. In origin the Judeo-Christian God had a very personal relationship with people and rules were framed in terms of how God would perceive actions (and He was of course watching you at all times). In current Western societies I think there's been a significant move away from that sort of personal relationship to a more distant one (probably reflecting the widespread knowledge now of what a tiny part of the universe humanity represents). I think there's been a gradual move away from framing rules in terms of how they affect a personal relationship with God and more to how they affect relationships with other people - and that seems to me to be consistent with the essential teachings of Jesus.
So this perhaps begs the question, "what is the purpose of religion". Some people may not believe in a very personal relationship with God or in miraculous interventions. However, they may believe in the idea of a Creator and that He wants to promote a general spirit of harmony. In that case they could interpret the teachings of Jesus as lessons in how to get along with each other. It seems to me that if they're following his essential message to love God and each other, they're fully entitled to describe themselves as Christians. Whether they also believe in the divinity of Jesus or the physical resurrection is not a central issue to their faith.
You try and illustrate the argument by referring to political parties, but I would again draw different conclusions from that analogy. While you may not belong to any party, many people do - and even if they don't many will strongly identify themselves as a supporter of a particular party. It would be unusual for someone describing themselves as a Republican to support everything in the Republican program, but that doesn't mean people generally agree they should not describe themselves as a Republican. Political parties are 'broad churches' in this sense - and I think that's the correct comparison with the term 'Christianity'. In my view it's when people try to narrow the definitions that you get a problem. For instance some people would take the view that the only 'true' Republicans are members of the Tea Party movement. That would be fine if they actually formed a separate Tea Party and campaigned for their own views, but it's not fine when they wish to redefine how others believe and act - and the same would apply to religions.
@FinneousPJ, as I mentioned, the Bible would be one of several other historical documents that I think are of greater importance, as I find personal value in them. For me this also extends to fiction. I consider The Lord of the Rings to be of greater importance than other literature, again for the personal value it holds for me. I really feel as if there's subtext to your question, so feel free to ask something directly. (I don't mean that in an antagonistic way, but rather in the sense that I'm willing to directly answer any question that this line of questioning is leading to.)
The reason the differing books of the Bible need to be treated differently is that they are different. It's not a single book that was written by a single author at a single time. It's a collection of different texts. I already referenced the Song of Solomon. If you read through a brief summary of its context, it clearly is not intended to be documenting a historical event or provide any sort of moral guidelines. Contrast it with Exodus, which likely had multiple authors and documented historical events (again, in the narrative form that was characteristic of many ancient cultures rather than the logical and temporal modern approach). Then look at Galatians, one of the letters written by Paul. As described in the background information, it was simply an actual letter from a single person to a community regarding specific issues they were facing.
Trying to impose a single mode of interpretation upon each of these texts and treating them in the same way completely disregards the wider context that you said you're happy to accept.
@FinneousPJ, as I mentioned, the Bible would be one of several other historical documents that I think are of greater importance, as I find personal value in them. For me this also extends to fiction. I consider The Lord of the Rings to be of greater importance than other literature, again for the personal value it holds for me. I really feel as if there's subtext to your question, so feel free to ask something directly. (I don't mean that in an antagonistic way, but rather in the sense that I'm willing to directly answer any question that this line of questioning is leading to.)
The reason the differing books of the Bible need to be treated differently is that they are different. It's not a single book that was written by a single author at a single time. It's a collection of different texts. I already referenced the Song of Solomon. If you read through a brief summary of its context, it clearly is not intended to be documenting a historical event or provide any sort of moral guidelines. Contrast it with Exodus, which likely had multiple authors and documented historical events (again, in the narrative form that was characteristic of many ancient cultures rather than the logical and temporal modern approach). Then look at Galatians, one of the letters written by Paul. As described in the background information, it was simply an actual letter from a single person to a community regarding specific issues they were facing.
Trying to impose a single mode of interpretation upon each of these texts and treating them in the same way completely disregards the wider context that you said you're happy to accept.
What do you mean by personal value? You don't think they should hold any special value to other people? If you're putting LOTR and the bible on equal footing because you like them and don't think they affect other people's lives I'm happy with that. Unfortunately many religious people do think they should for example legislate based on the bible.
As an aside, the exodus is probably not historical.
Do you believe there is a god? Do you believe the bible is somehow related to this god? Divinely inspired or whatever, please use your own words.
Let me just add a side note to the current discussion. Fundamentalists are present everywhere. An atheist fundamentalist is as mind boggling as a christian one to me and they will hold their views even when presented with evidence they are wrong.
An "atheist fundamentalist"? What exactly do you mean by this? I am not suggesting that no such animal exists (whether I have ever heard of one or interacted with such before or not), only that I would like to get your definition. I have heard many Christians (for example) call anyone employing rationality a "dogmatic zealot!", be they Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or what have you.
Not every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, add your favorite religion here, is a zealot. Not every atheist, agnostic, add your favorite non-believer bland here, is rational.
While this is true, it is also rather irrelevant to the debate(s). As far as I have read no one is arguing that every religious believer is a zealot, nor does anyone assert that every non-believer is rational. Atheism and agnosticism (and agnostic-atheism) can be without the person in question ever even hearing of God or gods, being brain damaged and unable to really comprehend the matter, etc.
Regarding biblical interpretation the only people who could answer what they actually meant have been dead for at least 1900 years... Everything else we discuss today is merely opinion. If it's official interpretation or not is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the text. Let's add all the changes of meaning that happened in who knows how many translations of the original text and we see we are all discussing opinion here.
While this is -to some degree at least- true, you are ignoring context here. We can rationally infer that none of the Biblical authors had any care for or respect for gays because back when these books were written (and recorded throughout the Bible) even women were defined as male property (hence why the actual commandment against "adultery" describes the act of one man sleeping with another man's wife and not the simple act of cheating on your own spouse.) Likewise gays back then were for the most part shunned and forced into secrecy. It would be one thing if the Bible were at least consistent and the character(s) of 'God' stated in unmistakable terms that either homosexuality was right or wrong and that attacking gays was either right or wrong.
To be clear people will choose their beliefs according to their preconceptions. If they believe homosexuals are wicked they will find religious texts to support their view of the world. If they believe that only god may judge who is right or wrong and they should treat everyone as equal, there is support for their view as well.
And hence why -on a related but different track- the Bible cannot be taken rationally as anything but a collection of primitive folklore of nomads who lived over 2,000 years ago.
@Isandir
Yes, the discussion in the past was focused on behavior, so I focused on it as well. Though I could swear that I put believing in Jesus' divinity as a point on my list.
I just started reading the new testament again for the first time in many years due to this thread. One of the things that has struck me so far is the seeming impossibility of what Christ is demanding.
(paraphrasing) Love me more than your father, mother, and children or go to hell forever.
How can you command someone to love? Love is a rare phenomenon. And it cannot be forced. "Love me or else!" simply is impossible. You can command obedience and fear, but never love. Under fear of penalty, the love will be false. How can someone not be a hypocrite in this situation? Or is this word "love" being used in a different context than I am familiar with? Something more akin to surrender or subservience?
And on that point, this reading has made me laugh at how hypocritical every bible spouting politician is (not that I didn't know that already). How do they reconcile it? Or are they so cynical that they laugh inside too? Practically every word is against their entire way of being. And how do people who believe allow them to get away with it? Anyway, it has been thought provoking so far.
If this is your only line of commentary regarding my post, I think it best we just leave it here. You will doubtless nitpick any response I give and we will go on and on focusing on minutia and missing my overall point completely.
If this is your only line of commentary regarding my post, I think it best we just leave it here. You will doubtless nitpick any response I give and we will go on and on focusing on minutia and missing my overall point completely.
Of course not... we're supposed to analyze the deep philosophical implications of the lyrics.... What is love? Is it just a not fully understood neuro-chemical reaction in our brains?
Comments
I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at with the second question. Could you clarify or rephrase that? The meaningfulness ascribed to something (whether a belief, work of art, relationship, political affiliation, etc.) is a very personal type of emotion, so I don't think anyone can presume to to say what someone should or should not care about. If you're asking, on a broader scale, if I think the implications of a particular religion being true would mean people should care about it more, the answer would still essentially be that it's very personal. What I would expect is that those who believe it would be passionate and excited to share that belief, just as we are excited to share other things in our life that we ascribe meaning to...like Baldur's Gate.
Did that at least partially address what you were looking for, or was I off base?
@Kamigoroshi, I expected that something like this would be raised, hence my comment about opening a can of worms! Go back to my line of thought regarding the consensus of thought in other fields for a moment. If we were to look at the range of views among Egyptologists as one example, most would agree one many key aspects of Egyptian history and culture. They would disagree in some specifics, perhaps in the manner in which the pyramids were constructed. But then along comes a small number of people who claim that a few pieces of data should actually be interpreted as evidence of aliens building the pyramids. This obviously represents a real case, and few have any qualms in saying that those people shouldn't be considered true Egyptologists or historians.
The core Christian beliefs I listed were absolutely debated following the death of Jesus, but they emerged not by a random process, but rather consideration of varying types of evidence, all contextualized in what was known of the history and culture of that time. That's the reason they have been the core of the religion for so long without further serious debate, and why Christians should have every right to say that groups who deviate from these should not be termed Christian.
(I don't mean the following as a further argument for this position, but it made me recall an article I saw years ago about a girl's family suing the Boy Scouts of American because they wouldn't allow her to join. My thought at the time was simple: if it's a group that has come together, defined its collective beliefs and set those as a standard for being a part of it, they have every right to do so, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with those beliefs.)
Again, I see this tying back to a balance of procedural standards, evidence in context and consistency in interpretation. Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and, yes, the Westboro Baptists, do violate these in my opinion, even if agreeing in other non-essential areas. In my opinion they can be said to outside the bounds of the Christian faith. I'd say the same about the Ahmadiyyas in Islam or particular strains of syncretic Buddhism here in Thailand that resemble animism far more than the teachings of Buddha.
There's already been a few mentions of groups that are commonly termed Christian, which do not necessarily accept the divinity of Jesus, but I agree they are relatively marginal. However, if we look at belief in the resurrection there are an awful lot of Christians who do not accept the literal teaching of the bible on that. The BBC commissioned a survey in 2017 (see here for data tables) that covered this and suggested that only a minority of Christians in the UK accepted this teaching. If you consider only active Christians, there was a majority, but not a large one.
Most of those who don't believe in the literal resurrection, do believe in it's spiritual value - this article covers the argument about this. I'm sure many of those who take this line would passionately defend their right to call themselves Christians.
If you want to more narrowly define a group that accepts the above core elements I think you would probably need a different term to just 'Christian'. Alternatively, you could accept the idea of a broad church and a more general description of what it means to be Christian. To my mind you could say that covers anyone who accepts the ministry of Jesus and his call to love both God and other people. I think that's the true core element of the religion - the other elements are simply about what people believe, rather than the much more important issue of how they should relate to other people and the world around them.
A "historical method" is not science in my view. But indeed, I don't see how you could use science to find out what interpretation of the bible is true.
For example, should we care about what the bible says about morality? Why? Should we care about arguments in the vein of "marriage laws should be in accordance to the bible"? Why? EDIT: Care any more than let's say Harry Potter books. In other words, do you think the bible has value other than "regular" historical or literary analysis?
I don't understand the issue some people seem to have defining "Chrisitanity". We are called Christians because we follow Christ. If you belong to a group that flat out doesn't follow His teachings, it doesn't matter waht you call yourself, you aren't a Christian. Interpretation is one thing, but calling a chicken a duck makes no sense.
In your example you're comparing two different sorts of terms for creatures. 'Chicken' is a specific species, but 'duck' is a common term used to group together a wide range of species. To my mind it would be reasonable to draw an analogy between that usage of 'duck' and 'Christian' - both embrace a wide variety of slightly different species, but with common characteristics that mean people find it helpful to group them together. To restrict which people are described as Christians would be akin to narrowing the definition of duck - for instance saying something like only mallards are true ducks and other species like eiders have to call themselves something different. I'm not sure that sort of approach would reduce confusion about what the term 'Christian' means.
In your example you're comparing two different sorts of terms for creatures. 'Chicken' is a specific species, but 'duck' is a common term used to group together a wide range of species. To my mind it would be reasonable to draw an analogy between that usage of 'duck' and 'Christian' - both embrace a wide variety of slightly different species, but with common characteristics that mean people find it helpful to group them together. To restrict which people are described as Christians would be akin to narrowing the definition of duck - for instance saying something like only mallards are true ducks and other species like eiders have to call themselves something different. I'm not sure that sort of approach would reduce confusion about what the term 'Christian' means.
>
>
>
>
>
Don't even get me started about those darned mergansers.
Seriously, a duck with teeth? WTF!
The first is the exegesis of the text. Taken as a whole and in context, Christianity relies most heavily on a physical resurrection of Jesus, as it serves as the basis for the restoration of the humanity's broken relationship with god (part of which I mentioned in passing when referencing the exodus). Again, this conclusion captures the entire narrative flow of scripture and This is most strongly emphasized by Paul in I Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." The more literal translation is closer to emerging from an actual grave, and he goes on to reinforce this several times.
While I understand the conclusions of those quoted in the article you shared, @Grond0, you'll also note that their basis for this is simply their struggle to reconcile what is deemed a miracle with their prevailing worldview. Spong in particular has long been known within Christianity as someone who promotes a secular form of the religion, but bases this on incredulity rather than following the logical conclusions of what scripture claims when a systematic historical approach is applied to it.
The second point again goes right back to the right of any group, whether religious or secular, to define itself, regardless of whether they themselves are factually right or wrong in holding to that definition. I could claim to be Buddhist, as I share particular beliefs from that faith, but given that I don't believe in a cycle of rebirth, the bottom line is that I'm not Buddhist. I adopt a few political positions in line with the Republicans, and many more with the Democrats, but I'm ultimately not a party member of either, as I don't agree with the entirety of their core platforms.
Tying this together, the Nicene Creed was again meant to establish a common understanding of what it meant to be Christian, and it was accepted by most of the major groups of the time. Yes, there have always been some groups that did not accept it, but that does not mean they can then lay claim to the name. I think @Grond0 touched one suggestion: there should almost be a separate term to describe those who share some of the Christian philosophy but reject the traditional, core beliefs. @semiticgod, you raise a point that I think also ties back to the "pick and choose" problem. You indicate that a definition of Christian could be a person who believes in the teachings of Christ. Taking his teaching and his words to their logical conclusion based on the context, he claimed to be god.
I think perhaps @ThacoBell up to this point had been trying to distill Christianity to its core in the sense of what it means in respect to personal behavior, but perhaps the conversation was just focused on that side of it. I don't want to speak on your behalf @ThacoBell, but my hunch is that you'd likely agree to the core of Christianity resting on the resurrection. Is that correct?
@FinneousPJ, The historical method is not a science, but applied in the strict term, neither is psychology or sociology. It falls under the "soft sciences" as they do, and it represents a consistent approach that is applied by historians. This isn't saying that the historical method is foolproof and allows us to arrive at the single "true" interpretation. But again, the same can be said of psychology and sociology. Using the former as an example, a psychiatrist essentially follows a standard method of patient assessment, refers back to other cases, considers the patient context and draws a conclusion.
Does this mean that every patient is always diagnosed correctly? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate the field of psychiatry, and it still allows us to reach the most reasonable conclusions based on the existing evidence. That is precisely what the historical method and textual analysis intend to do. The argument I'm making is that simply picking a handful of verses from the Bible and declaring that they demonstrate a particular view completely throws out any kind of analytic methodology and utterly fails to consider context. That's not a consistent way to defend a position of any type.
If you're asking me if I personally believe that the Bible has value beyond any other historical document, the answer is yes. If you ask me the same about the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, the answer would also be yes. Again, I'm sensing that you're looking for something a bit deeper here, particularly in reference to marriage law. To address that directly, I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) should not be used as the litmus for our laws, nor do I think it was intended to be.
On a side note, thanks @Grond0 for the compliment, though I often feel like I'm just rambling! The reason I at least try to be clear when tackling any topic of this type is that it's too easy to misinterpret what someone is saying, which leads right back to assumptions and animosity. People can disagree on all of this and still get along just fine.
I'm happy with looking at the wider context of the words in the book, but when you start arguing how some passages need to be taken with a historical grain of salt and others do not, how the book is historical if we ignore its historicity and so on, you're entering woo-woo territory.
Just for context my background is in hard science and engineering.
Yes, no, no, sometimes. Your criticism is exactly why I think science (as a method) is the best way we have to find out how the world works. When the evidence is presented the god of the bible is real and is how he is described in the book, I am willing to change my mind.
As I posted before, in Western societies a belief in the physical resurrection now seems to be a minority view of those who identify themselves as Christians. I agree with you that reflects a more general disinclination to believe in miracles, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from that. I think it reflects a more general evolution of how people think of religion. In origin the Judeo-Christian God had a very personal relationship with people and rules were framed in terms of how God would perceive actions (and He was of course watching you at all times). In current Western societies I think there's been a significant move away from that sort of personal relationship to a more distant one (probably reflecting the widespread knowledge now of what a tiny part of the universe humanity represents). I think there's been a gradual move away from framing rules in terms of how they affect a personal relationship with God and more to how they affect relationships with other people - and that seems to me to be consistent with the essential teachings of Jesus.
So this perhaps begs the question, "what is the purpose of religion". Some people may not believe in a very personal relationship with God or in miraculous interventions. However, they may believe in the idea of a Creator and that He wants to promote a general spirit of harmony. In that case they could interpret the teachings of Jesus as lessons in how to get along with each other. It seems to me that if they're following his essential message to love God and each other, they're fully entitled to describe themselves as Christians. Whether they also believe in the divinity of Jesus or the physical resurrection is not a central issue to their faith.
You try and illustrate the argument by referring to political parties, but I would again draw different conclusions from that analogy. While you may not belong to any party, many people do - and even if they don't many will strongly identify themselves as a supporter of a particular party. It would be unusual for someone describing themselves as a Republican to support everything in the Republican program, but that doesn't mean people generally agree they should not describe themselves as a Republican. Political parties are 'broad churches' in this sense - and I think that's the correct comparison with the term 'Christianity'. In my view it's when people try to narrow the definitions that you get a problem. For instance some people would take the view that the only 'true' Republicans are members of the Tea Party movement. That would be fine if they actually formed a separate Tea Party and campaigned for their own views, but it's not fine when they wish to redefine how others believe and act - and the same would apply to religions.
The reason the differing books of the Bible need to be treated differently is that they are different. It's not a single book that was written by a single author at a single time. It's a collection of different texts. I already referenced the Song of Solomon. If you read through a brief summary of its context, it clearly is not intended to be documenting a historical event or provide any sort of moral guidelines. Contrast it with Exodus, which likely had multiple authors and documented historical events (again, in the narrative form that was characteristic of many ancient cultures rather than the logical and temporal modern approach). Then look at Galatians, one of the letters written by Paul. As described in the background information, it was simply an actual letter from a single person to a community regarding specific issues they were facing.
Trying to impose a single mode of interpretation upon each of these texts and treating them in the same way completely disregards the wider context that you said you're happy to accept.
As an aside, the exodus is probably not historical.
Do you believe there is a god? Do you believe the bible is somehow related to this god? Divinely inspired or whatever, please use your own words.
An "atheist fundamentalist"? What exactly do you mean by this? I am not suggesting that no such animal exists (whether I have ever heard of one or interacted with such before or not), only that I would like to get your definition. I have heard many Christians (for example) call anyone employing rationality a "dogmatic zealot!", be they Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or what have you.
While this is true, it is also rather irrelevant to the debate(s). As far as I have read no one is arguing that every religious believer is a zealot, nor does anyone assert that every non-believer is rational. Atheism and agnosticism (and agnostic-atheism) can be without the person in question ever even hearing of God or gods, being brain damaged and unable to really comprehend the matter, etc.
While this is -to some degree at least- true, you are ignoring context here. We can rationally infer that none of the Biblical authors had any care for or respect for gays because back when these books were written (and recorded throughout the Bible) even women were defined as male property (hence why the actual commandment against "adultery" describes the act of one man sleeping with another man's wife and not the simple act of cheating on your own spouse.) Likewise gays back then were for the most part shunned and forced into secrecy. It would be one thing if the Bible were at least consistent and the character(s) of 'God' stated in unmistakable terms that either homosexuality was right or wrong and that attacking gays was either right or wrong.
And hence why -on a related but different track- the Bible cannot be taken rationally as anything but a collection of primitive folklore of nomads who lived over 2,000 years ago.
Yes, the discussion in the past was focused on behavior, so I focused on it as well. Though I could swear that I put believing in Jesus' divinity as a point on my list.
(paraphrasing) Love me more than your father, mother, and children or go to hell forever.
How can you command someone to love? Love is a rare phenomenon. And it cannot be forced. "Love me or else!" simply is impossible. You can command obedience and fear, but never love. Under fear of penalty, the love will be false. How can someone not be a hypocrite in this situation? Or is this word "love" being used in a different context than I am familiar with? Something more akin to surrender or subservience?
And on that point, this reading has made me laugh at how hypocritical every bible spouting politician is (not that I didn't know that already). How do they reconcile it? Or are they so cynical that they laugh inside too? Practically every word is against their entire way of being. And how do people who believe allow them to get away with it? Anyway, it has been thought provoking so far.
Then I said, "And on that point, this reading has made me laugh at how hypocritical every bible spouting politician."
Both can be hypocrites.
I think it's just funny. What is your point?
Of course not... we're supposed to analyze the deep philosophical implications of the lyrics.... What is love? Is it just a not fully understood neuro-chemical reaction in our brains?