Dedicated 1GHZ/512 MB server with 300GB transfer for $99/month. Virutual domain for $10.
| What is "Christian" anyway? |  |  | |
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Waspinatrix ® 01/16/2002, 04:21:45 Author Profile Mail author |
Is it a follower of Christ, and his teachings? Or someone who whoships him as Devine? Is it required to follow all of his Aposles 'Letters of recommended courses of action' too? And what about all those previous Laws, like that of Moses? Are we beholden to them as well? Or are they fulfilled (and now we just obey the new Laws)? To my understanding, the Laws of Adam were superceeded by Abraham, who was superceeded by successor (Moses, vis-a-vis David, to Jesus). Alot of Christians I know (including myself) seem to like to pick-and-choose what Laws are valid or not. Like Paul did... Do we breed like rabits (as Adam was commanded to)?
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: What is "Christian" anyway? Re: What is "Christian" anyway? -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 16:10:48
Author Profile Mail author
Can you do coin flips? Vicki tells us that if we ask 10 Christians about “heaven,” we will get 10 different answers.
Applying her thinking to your question, a similar result may be the case.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: 10 different answers Re: Re: What is "Christian" anyway? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 21:20:38
Author Profile Mail author
JAK: Maybe I've misinterpreted you, but you seem to regard the fact that the question may well be answered by 10 different believing individuals (and, IMO, accurately so) differently as an indication of some kind of fatal flaw in the belief, or system of beliefs, or behavior, or behaviors, or aspirations, or hopes, or whatever is meant by the term Christianity. Why? Perhaps the term describes a/many many-faceted idea(s), belief(s), behavior, aspiration(s), and or hope(s). There are many of all of the above that Christians share in common, as expressed in, for example, the beliefs set out in the Nicene Creed, and the (myriad) behaviors encompassed in the injunction to love one's neighbor as oneself, however, there are, of course, as many variations as there are Christians, and I'd be surprised if this can not be said to accurately describe the professors of most belief systems, including athiests, agnostics, etc. In fact, I'm surprised to hear such an objection from an athiest or agnostic (sorry, I've forgotten how, specifically, you characterize your own belief, or, if you prefer, non-belief system), in particular. To me this ease of diversity in Christianity is certainly a recommendation in favor of this belief.
Is it the complexity that you find uncomfortable? Does the diversity feel threatening to you? With regard to the heaven thread, I thought your comments were due to a misunderstanding of the attitude of many liberal Christians who simply regard the question of the nature of "heaven," to be irrelevant, but your response here seems to indicate some other basises for your objections.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: 100's of different answers Re: Re: 10 different answers -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/16/2002, 22:29:09
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe, The idea that any or all characterizations are correct/accurate/reliable may be ecumenically inclusive. The idea that all such speculations are equally valid or that any are valid is flawed. Religion is weakened by dilution. For strength, religion a religion must insist on its own validity. In doing so, it necessarily must exclude OTHER beliefs. If one argues that all Christian views are of equal validity, one weakens any authoritative assertions made by individual cults, sects, or denominations of particular Christian adherents.
The next level of expansion for ecumenical view is to acknowledge that other religions -- ALL other religions have equality with Christianity. Hence expanded “diversity” for religion. Currently President Bush is attempting to argue this view as he defends the Islamic religion. (Given his previous statements, it is quite disingenuous.)
You stated: “To me this ease of diversity in Christianity is certainly a
recommendation in favor of this belief.” It is that diversity which weakens. To allow that all Christian groups are equal is to give strength to none. Jim Jones who took a Christian cult to South America and orchestrated mass suicide in the name of Christianity IS NOT likely a “diversity” and level of tolerance you could support. But to declare that Jones was not Christian is to withdraw that “diversity” which you say gives “recommendation.” Hitler was Christian. He said he was. Who is anyone (you) to exclude Hitler from an example of “Christian behavior”? But I suspect your diversity does not extend to him.By expansion of acceptance, all religions give “diversity” in global religion. Hence, ALL religions are of value and have validity. Christianity alone is much too narrow, but as we include ALL religions, we expand diversity and give “recommendation” to religion as a whole.
By so doing we include “a/many many-faceted idea(s), belief(s), behavior, aspiration(s), and or hope(s).” ...Your words.
Do you find that complexity uncomfortable, Zoe?
...All these different mythologies together advancing the cause of religious truth.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: 100's of different questions Re: Re: 100's of different answers -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/16/2002, 23:40:06
Author Profile Mail author
I didn't say that "any or all characterizations are correct/accurate/reliable..." or that "such speculations are equally valid...." I don't know exactly what you consider to be "valid," but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your definition. I've chosen my beliefs based upon what I consider to be a resoanble examination of most major religious beliefs, a close observation and examination of some, and my experience, and most certainly think that my beliefs are as "valid" as your (non-)beliefs. Since you don't believe, how do you know that "Religion is weakened by dilution," necessarily or ever? and what pray-tell, do you consider to be "strength" in the context of religion? Please define what makes a religion either strong or weak. Liberal and most protestant Christianity explicity and emphtically does not "insist on its own validity...." to the exclusion of other Christian sects, and doesn't see any need to do so. You don't, as a rule, find Methodists running around declaring that theirs is the only Christianiy, and Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not Christian. In fact, I think such a declaration would have to be extremely rare, and not likely recent either. Neither have I argued that ALL Christian views are equally valid. I think fundamentalist Christian views are invalid as Christianity. I think that Seventh-Day Adventist views are invalid as Christianity (although I understad that some of them, at least, have corrected some of the views that, IMO, disqualify them from Christianity). I think that Mormon views are invalid as Christianity. I don't know what you mean by "authority" when you state that "If one argues that all Christian views are of equal validity, one weakens any authoritative assertions made by individual cults, sects, or denominations of particular Christian adherents,..." but then again, I haven't stated that all Christian beliefs are equally valid either. In any case, I don't believe that Christianity has anything to with, or any need of human authority.
I have not discussed "The next level of expansion for ecumenical view,..." nor do I "acknowledge that other religions -- ALL other religions have equality with Christianity." On the contrary, I have ruled out the consideration of ALL other religious for validity, myself; however, that does not mean that I feel any need to try to compel others to accept my view, or do not at least aspire to respect theirs (O.K. - with the notable exception of Mormonism), and I certainly am more than willing to share my convictions and my reasons for them with others (and don't you feel lucky?). And I have to say that the comparison to Bush du jour really hurts my feelings, being the fairly rabid liberal that I am.
I don't happen to think that religion requires a high degree of comformity in details of practice and doctrine to be "valid;" people are not one-size fits all; that would really be hell. I fail to understand stand how flexibility can reasonably be unequivocally equated with weakness. A certain degree of flexibility is, IMO, strengthening in that it counteracts brittleness. I don't believe that Christianity has "weakened," whatever that word means to you.
Your examples of Jim Jones and Hitler are, if memory serves, excellent examples of reductio ad absurdum, but I'll leave that to Alf and Martin to sort out. In fact, since I have premised my arguments on the model of Christianity as multidemtional (although not chaotically formless), I should think it would be obvious to you that the mere declaration of a belief, but one dimension, does not necessarily a Christian make. What do I make of Jim Jones? I think he's an aberration, and am fairly sure that, upon a close examination of his teachings, which I have not made, I would find gross insistencies with and contradiction of basic Christian doctrines shared by ALL Christians. Certainly, the dimesion of his actual behavior can not be considered to be Christian either, and I doubt you'll find any other Chridtian sect claiming so. I find the Hitler example even less credible, since, regardless what Hitler may have said, it defies common sense to take him at his word on anything. I have read some who consider Nazism to be the first wide-spread modern resurgance of Paganism, for various reasons that I won't get into.
I'm comfortable with my own views, and not, with the exception of Jones, Hitler, and, now bin Laden, as recent historical examples, deeply troubled by anyone elses. I find the politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority" disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate. Do you disagree?
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Part I Re: Re: 100's of different questions -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/17/2002, 21:52:43
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states:
I didn't say that "any or all characterizations are correct/accurate/reliable..." or that "such
speculations are equally valid...." I don't know exactly what you consider to be "valid," but
whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your definition. I've chosen my beliefs
based upon what I consider to be a resoanble examination of most major religious beliefs, a
close observation and examination of some, and my experience, and most certainly think
that my beliefs are as "valid" as your (non-)beliefs.JAK:
I doubt you “have chosen my (your) beliefs.” Unless you can demonstrate you came to the “belief” table free of bias imposed on you from childhood, you are likely a product of your environment. And being a product, you likely did not choose from an intellectually informed, bias free environment. None of us did. Of course you view your “beliefs” as valid. So do Islamic fundamentalists who wish to bomb American real estate view THEIR beliefs as valid.
Zoe states:
Since you don't believe, how do you know that "Religion is weakened by dilution,"
necessarily or ever? and what pray-tell, do you consider to be "strength" in the context of
religion?JAK:
Good questions. Permit a comparison. The more water one adds to the juice, the more diluted the juice becomes. Of course religion is not juice, so the analogy is merely a comparison. The more points of view a given religion is required to accommodate, the weaker it becomes. Doctrine disintegrates as it is interpreted, reinterpreted, discarded, reconstructed, etc. Religion tends to be self-destructive as members of its cults engage in thinking. As they think, they come to different conclusions that previous adherents of the doctrine. They form their own groups, churches, etc. If they dialogue with members of OTHER churches, they disagree. To prop up their own group(s), they invent other doctrine in order to distinguish themselves.
Strength (such as it is) lies in uncompromising dogma. “This is the way it IS.” And, “Do NOT question the word of God
Ecumenical views are tolerant. Tolerance in religion for different religion weakens position.
Zoe states:
Please define what makes a religion either strong or weak. Liberal and most
protestant Christianity explicity and emphtically does not "insist on its own validity...." to
the exclusion of other Christian sects, and doesn't see any need to do so.JAK:
The degree to which any religion tolerates differing views is not evidence of strength. If other views are valid AND different, someone is wrong. The question then becomes who is wrong. Take any Christian story you wish. As you credit ONE interpretation over another, you weaken the power of position.
Zoe states:
You don't, as a
rule, find Methodists running around declaring that theirs is the only Christianiy, and
Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not Christian. In fact, I think such a declaration would
have to be extremely rare, and not likely recent either. Neither have I argued that ALL
Christian views are equally valid.JAK:
While that assessment is correct in the manner in which you express it, there is that kind of declaration in support by membership for one denomination over another. Why don’t the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians simply group together and unite? They don’t agree each with the other’s doctrine. Each believes HIS religious views are superior. If not, a person would seek out another denomination. There is a kind of unspoken truce among Christians. But that is not true everywhere. Catholics and Protestants have fought to the death and recently too.
Why have you failed to argue all Christian views are equally valid? ...because you don’t think they are. Some are better -- superior -- in your view. Perhaps you think ONE is superior. That is the nature of religion. Tolerance, acceptance, genuine respect (not the silent truce) are unlikely.
Zoe states:
I think fundamentalist Christian views are invalid as
Christianity. I think that Seventh-Day Adventist views are invalid as Christianity (although I
understad that some of them, at least, have corrected some of the views that, IMO,
disqualify them from Christianity). I think that Mormon views are invalid as Christianity. I
don't know what you mean by "authority" when you state that "If one argues that all
Christian views are of equal validity, one weakens any authoritative assertions made by
individual cults, sects, or denominations of particular Christian adherents,..." but then
again, I haven't stated that all Christian beliefs are equally valid either. In any case, I don't
believe that Christianity has anything to with, or any need of human authority.JAK:
By ruling out all the groups which you mention, you diminish Christianity in the shear subtraction of numbers. You regard all the ones you named as invalid. By the time you finish ruling out others who regard themselves as Christian, your number -- body count for the VALID Christianity is likely to be small. Yet when you wish to declare Christianity as the right religion, you are likely to INCLUDE all those people in a count to demonstrate strength. And why are all their views wrong? How did you rule them out? What is your basis for declaring that their view is wrong and YOUR view is right? That is precisely the intolerance of religion. Christianity is intolerant. You have demonstrated that in this example.
Ending part I. Maybe a part II.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Part I Re: Part I -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/18/2002, 05:35:07
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states:
I didn't say that "any or all characterizations are correct/accurate/reliable..." or that "such speculations are equally valid...." I don't know exactly what you consider to be "valid," but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your definition. I've chosen my beliefs based upon what I consider to be a resoanble examination of most major religious beliefs, a close observation and examination of some, and my experience, and most certainly think that my beliefs are as "valid" as your (non-)beliefs.JAK:
I doubt you “have chosen my (your) beliefs.” Unless you can demonstrate you came to the “belief” table free of bias imposed on you from childhood, you are likely a product of your environment. And being a product, you likely did not choose from an intellectually informed, bias free environment. None of us did. Of course you view your “beliefs” as valid. So do Islamic fundamentalists who wish to bomb American real estate view THEIR beliefs as valid.My 1.5 cents:
How would you know what she choose? Or how she went about to come to her conclusions? Do you know her personally? Is everything so irrational and reactionary as that? Are you saying that you are as you are simply by going along with what you were taught, or by what you are rebelling against? If so, that seems like a rather dismal psychological profile of the human race as a whole. And what's this about the Osama bin Laudin followers? It seemed pretty obvious that they did what they did because they beleived what they believed, what American hasn't been saturated by this not-so-new-news? Why even bring the Taliban up? Other than as shock value... IMNSHO.Zoe states:
Since you don't believe, how do you know that "Religion is weakened by dilution," necessarily or ever? and what pray-tell, do you consider to be "strength" in the context of religion?JAK:
Good questions. Permit a comparison. The more water one adds to the juice, the more diluted the juice becomes. Of course religion is not juice, so the analogy is merely a comparison. The more points of view a given religion is required to accommodate, the weaker it becomes. Doctrine disintegrates as it is interpreted, reinterpreted, discarded, reconstructed, etc. Religion tends to be self-destructive as members of its cults engage in thinking. As they think, they come to different conclusions that previous adherents of the doctrine. They form their own groups, churches, etc. If they dialogue with members of OTHER churches, they disagree. To prop up their own group(s), they invent other doctrine in order to distinguish themselves.Strength (such as it is) lies in uncompromising dogma. “This is the way it IS.” And, “Do NOT question the word of God
Ecumenical views are tolerant. Tolerance in religion for different religion weakens position.
My 1.5c:
heeheehee -- Juice -- heehee... Comparisons are fare, indeed, indeed... But there is also a point to diluting juice (orange juice becomes less acidic, grape becomes more sweet). And even to expand on your comparison... What if what was being used to 'dilute' the juice=religion was a different kind of juice, and not just water? Then you'd end up with not wishy-washy followers with little conviction, but rather with believers that had tailered systems of belief. Certainly there is no more such thing as 'unity of persception', but was there really such a thing in the first place? Even nature's clones don't find this much desired, though highly elusive concept.I do not agree with your statements of 'strength-through-noncompremise' and 'tollerance-weakens-posetion...' Totaliterianism does not gaurantee a position of strength, though it will open itself up to resistance -- who likes to be called 'wrong'? As for tolerance, I have fewer enemies when choosing to live with my neigbors peacefully...
Zoe states:
Please define what makes a religion either strong or weak. Liberal and most protestant Christianity explicity and emphtically does not "insist on its own validity...." to the exclusion of other Christian sects, and doesn't see any need to do so.JAK:
The degree to which any religion tolerates differing views is not evidence of strength. If other views are valid AND different, someone is wrong. The question then becomes who is wrong. Take any Christian story you wish. As you credit ONE interpretation over another, you weaken the power of position.My one point five cents:
On the contrary, JAK... Tolerance of different views speaks of self-confedence one has in one's own view. And that you lack fear of other viewpoints. IMNSHO if a person doesn't feel the need to attack or defend his view-point (physically, emotionally) then s/he ahs not only found the peace of mind that is much saught after, but has also found the inhuman strength to rise above pettiness. The 'christian story' texample is about like saying that 'the rich body of mythology made of mediochre pagans.'Zoe states:
You don't, as a rule, find Methodists running around declaring that theirs is the only Christianiy, and Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not Christian. In fact, I think such a declaration would have to be extremely rare, and not likely recent either. Neither have I argued that ALL Christian views are equally valid.JAK:
While that assessment is correct in the manner in which you express it, there is that kind of declaration in support by membership for one denomination over another. Why don’t the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians simply group together and unite? They don’t agree each with the other’s doctrine. Each believes HIS religious views are superior. If not, a person would seek out another denomination. There is a kind of unspoken truce among Christians. But that is not true everywhere. Catholics and Protestants have fought to the death and recently too. Why have you failed to argue all Christian views are equally valid? ...because you don’t think they are. Some are better -- superior -- in your view. Perhaps you think ONE is superior. That is the nature of religion. Tolerance, acceptance, genuine respect (not the silent truce) are unlikely.My(still digging for change):
The simple fact that some major sects have choosen to get along is progress. While it's true that 'Catholics and Prodistants have clashed again' recently, it's important to keep it in context... I believe you are refering to the IRA conflicts in Ireland, neh? If so, then it isn't *just* about my Christ is better than yours... It goes deeper and broader than that -- That particular conflict has been happening for over 200 years when England forcefully subjegated Ireland -- it's a moral, cultural, political struggle; religion is only fuel for the fire, *NOT* the fire itself...Zoe states:
I think fundamentalist Christian views are invalid as Cristianity. I think that Seventh-Day Adventist views are invalid as Christianity (although I understad that some of them, at least, have corrected some of the views that, IMO,
disqualify them from Christianity). I think that Mormon views are invalid as Christianity. I don't know what you mean by "authority" when you state that "If one argues that all
Christian views are of equal validity, one weakens any authoritative assertions made by individual cults, sects, or denominations of particular Christian adherents,..." but then again, I haven't stated that all Christian beliefs are equally valid either. In any case, I don't believe that Christianity has anything to with, or any need of human authority.JAK:
By ruling out all the groups which you mention, you diminish Christianity in the shear subtraction of numbers. You regard all the ones you named as invalid. By the time you finish ruling out others who regard themselves as Christian, your number -- body count for the VALID Christianity is likely to be small. Yet when you wish to declare Christianity as the right religion, you are likely to INCLUDE all those people in a count to demonstrate strength. And why are all their views wrong? How did you rule them out? What is your basis for declaring that their view is wrong and YOUR view is right? That is precisely the intolerance of religion. Christianity is intolerant. You have demonstrated that in this example.My last penny in 'Pocket I':
She only 'ruled them out' by stated personal opinion. She hasn't claimed to be an authority of Christiandom. Nor did she necessarily exclude particular denominations simply by the sharing of said opinion... And, she could claim them simply because (even though they differentiate on some, or even many key issues,) they agree on the key points of what Christ (was quoted as) himself said was required of a wo/man to be a Christian (faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost). The argument that 'Christianity is intollerant -- because you have been intolerant (even though she was expressing an opinion)(and since when Tolerance equal Indescriminent Acceptance -- to use a corelation that you might be wont to use -- that's like getting mad at people because they chose to dring water, and not mud; even though both are liquid). If we discount the 'keep it in context' bit I mentioned earlier, or the 'shock value' from the beginning, I would like to point out that you did a much more thourough job of pointing out religious intollerance (in general - Taliban-Islam, and specific - Christiality) then Zoe ever did when she simply stated what her opinion was...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond yesterday, Re: Part I -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/19/2002, 13:10:26
Author Profile Mail author
Jak. I was preoccupied. However, since Waspinatrix did such an admirable job of responding to you, I don't really feel I have much to add. I will respond to one of your assertions nevertheless:
You state that you "doubt" that I have "chosen my beliefs.'" Since I am in a better position to know the facts than you are, let me state, once again, that I did indeed chose my beliefs, after a lifetime of agnosticism, despite having been raised in the LDS church. As I've many times explained here, I conducted a thorough examination of various religious, and anti-religious perspectives, over a period of seven or eight years, and regard my chosen beliefs as just that, i.e.: beliefs. Can you claim the same investment and dedication? How much time have you spent working on the issue?
I expect that the reason I find it so hard to identify with other ex-mormons here and vice-versa, as well as athiests (some of whom may well call themselves agnostics out of recognition of the untenable philosophic, and scientific I might add, position of atheism) and rare true agnostics here, is that my path has been, as far as I can tell, unusual. I was never the believing Mormon I was raised to be, and always understood, on some level, that it was not something I had chosen, but something which others attempted to chose for me. In addition, I've never deluded myself that I know, one way or the other whether God exists, and do not to this day, and thus am a true agnostic, in that I readily acknowledge this.
However, belief, as I see it, is a separate issue. I asked you about your background before, and you declined to answer; can you at least tellus how long it's taken you to form your, apperently very firm, non-beliefs? What inquiry and investigation have you conducted? Is it possible that you have been at least as heavily influenced one way or another by your up-bringing, as you are so eager to assume I have been, based upon nothing more than your (seemingly flawed) understanding of my position? If so, I strongly urge you to take a few steps back, for perspective, and take more than awhile to look around you at all of the alternatives.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I appreciate time factors, Zoe Re: Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond yesterday, -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/23/2002, 13:21:56
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe stated: Jak. I was preoccupied. However, since Waspinatrix did such an admirable job of
responding to you, I don't really feel I have much to add.I will respond to one of your assertions nevertheless:
You state that you "doubt" that I have "chosen my beliefs.'" Since I am in a better
position to know the facts than you are, let me state, once again, that I did indeed
chose my beliefs, after a lifetime of agnosticism, despite having been raised in the LDS
church. As I've many times explained here, I conducted a thorough examination of
various religious, and anti-religious perspectives, over a period of seven or eight
years, and regard my chosen beliefs as just that, i.e.: beliefs. Can you claim the same
investment and dedication? How much time have you spent working on the issue?JAK:
We all like to believe that WE choose. The degree to which that is the case is the subject of much debate. To illustrate: None of us choose in what year we were born. None of us choose our parents. None of us choose our immediate ancestors. None of us choose our native language. None of us choose the socio-economic climate into which we come. None of us choose our genes or our DNA.Having said that, the degree to which any of us actually “choose” anything is quite marginalized. No matter how much time you spent in what you think was a “choice” of religion, there was not sufficient time to have examined all the nuance of historical record for all of Christianity let alone the historical record for religions of world prominence today. In light of these factors, I suggest that your choosing is largely an illusion. You had a childhood and/or youthful experience which shaped your perception. I could say the same for every person, so this is in no way a criticism, Zoe.
Our life experiences along with those factors I listed above are controlling in ways we simply cannot comprehend. You (or I) might have been born a hundred years before our actual birth date. Had we been so, our whole life experience would not only be over (unless we are over 100 years old) but it would have been different than the one we are experiencing. We might not have been born until 2082 ( 82 years into the future by our calendar). Were that to have been the case, our life, our perceptions our “choices” (to the limited extent we can make them) would have been different.
So when you declare that you have “chosen my beliefs,” you conveniently ignore the very elements which I have addressed just here.
Zoe states:
I expect that the reason I find it so hard to identify with other ex-mormons here and
vice-versa, as well as athiests (some of whom may well call themselves agnostics out
of recognition of the untenable philosophic, and scientific I might add, position of
atheism) and rare true agnostics here, is that my path has been, as far as I can tell,
unusual. I was never the believing Mormon I was raised to be, and always understood,
on some level, that it was not something I had chosen, but something which others
attempted to chose for me. In addition, I've never deluded myself that I know, one
way or the other whether God exists, and do not to this day, and thus am a true
agnostic, in that I readily acknowledge this.JAK:
You are surely to be commended for the degree to which you have been able to transcend by application of your mind. I am sure you appreciate this in yourself more than anyone who knows you is able to do.Zoe states:
However, belief, as I see it, is a separate issue.JAK:
I disagree with that. What anyone believes is directly linked to ones environment and heredity. None of us escape that fact.Zoe states:
I asked you about your background
before, and you declined to answer; can you at least tellus how long it's taken you to
form your, apperently very firm, non-beliefs? What inquiry and investigation have you
conducted? Is it possible that you have been at least as heavily influenced one way or
another by your up-bringing, as you are so eager to assume I have been, based upon
nothing more than your (seemingly flawed) understanding of my position? If so, I
strongly urge you to take a few steps back, for perspective, and take more than
awhile to look around you at all of the alternatives.JAK:
In short, I believe what I have stated in discussions here. It is a product of MY environment and heredity. My childhood experiences and advantages along with my formal education, family, friends, associations are the factors.I know only what you put on the page, Zoe. The degree to which it is a flawed view of you may be attributed to time, distance, vocabulary, background, and other factors which may have contributed to that flawed perception.
To be sure, each of us is limited in this encounter to what we see on the screen. There is not the slightest doubt that there are misinterpretations stemming from a variety of factors.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Part II Re: Re: 100's of different questions -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/17/2002, 22:43:00
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states in continuation: I have not discussed "The next level of expansion for ecumenical view,..." nor do I "acknowledge that other religions -- ALL other religions have equality with Christianity."
JAK:
To the degree that myth has validity, Christianity has validity. Mythology is not valid explanation.
Zoe states:
On
the contrary, I have ruled out the consideration of ALL other religious for validity, myself;
however, that does not mean that I feel any need to try to compel others to accept my
view, or do not at least aspire to respect theirs (O.K. - with the notable exception of
Mormonism), and I certainly am more than willing to share my convictions and my reasons
for them with others (and don't you feel lucky?). And I have to say that the comparison to
Bush du jour really hurts my feelings, being the fairly rabid liberal that I am.JAK:
How un-ecumenical of you. But it does demonstrate the intolerance of religion. As is usually the case -- My religion is the correct and true religion, yours is false. Or, there are two religions -- the true one MINE, and the false one -- YOURS -- or anyone’s which fails to agree in large measure with mine.
Zoe states:
I don't happen to think that religion requires a high degree of comformity in details of
practice and doctrine to be "valid;" people are not one-size fits all; that would really be
hell. I fail to understand stand how flexibility can reasonably be unequivocally equated with
weakness.JAK:
This certainly contradicts your previous statements of exclusion in part I and your declarations above here. If you open to people are not one size, Muslim is a size. While not YOUR size, a size none the less. So extend your comparison and give Islam “validity.” And while you are doing so, let’s not forget the other great world religions and their believers. Your previous exclusions support “one size fits all.” And that “size” is Christianity -- your version of it. That was your position in this very post as you subtracted particular “Christians” from Christianity.
Zoe states:
A certain degree of flexibility is, IMO, strengthening in that it counteracts
brittleness. I don't believe that Christianity has "weakened," whatever that word means to
you.JAK:
Quite the contrary, as I clarified earlier. The greater the dilution the weaker the juice. By diluting Christianity with the exclusions, YOU chose, you weaken. By ruling as “invalid” Christian denominations, sects, and cults, you diminish the religion as a whole.
Zoe states:
Your examples of Jim Jones and Hitler are, if memory serves, excellent examples of reductio
ad absurdum, but I'll leave that to Alf and Martin to sort out. In fact, since I have premised
my arguments on the model of Christianity as multidemtional (although not chaotically
formless), I should think it would be obvious to you that the mere declaration of a belief,
but one dimension, does not necessarily a Christian make. What do I make of Jim Jones?JAK:
Hitler declared himself Christian. Jim Jones did as well. You declare yourself Christian -- though much different that either of the other two. What is absurd is to conclude that any religion has validity. No evidence for validity of mythology can be offered to establish that one view is correct while other views are not.
You seem to wish it two ways. On the one hand, you exclude many Christians by asserting they are “invalid.” On the other hand, you argue for “multidenominational.” The insecurity is apparent. You want to count them all as Christian to garner power by number. At the same time, you wish to exclude all those groups which don’t comply with YOUR notion of “valid.”
Zoe states:
I
think he's an aberration, and am fairly sure that, upon a close examination of his teachings,
which I have not made, I would find gross insistencies with and contradiction of basic
Christian doctrines shared by ALL Christians.JAK:
With more than a thousand denominations, sects, and cults, Christianity is far more varied than you may wish to believe. Everyone wants to claim “God” in Christianity. Hitler was Roman Catholic -- didn’t much like the Jews. Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) didn’t much like the Jews either and raised virtually no objection to what Hitler did to the Jews at the time. (That’s another story.)Zoe states:
Certainly, the dimesion of his actual behavior
can not be considered to be Christian either, and I doubt you'll find any other Chridtian
sect claiming so.JAK:
Not today.Zoe stated:
I find the Hitler example even less credible, since, regardless what Hitler
may have said, it defies common sense to take him at his word on anything.JAK:
Religion and religious mythology “defies common sense.” Few today defend what Hitler did or his motives in doing it. Certainly. But your reference to “common sense” while defending irrational religion is laughable.
Zoe states:
I have read
some who consider Nazism to be the first wide-spread modern resurgance of Paganism, for
various reasons that I won't get into.I'm comfortable with my own views, and not, with the exception of Jones, Hitler, and, now
bin Laden, as recent historical examples, deeply troubled by anyone elses. I find the
politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority"
disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate.
Do you disagree?JAK:
I think you have much inconsistency in your views, Zoe.JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Jan 17, 2002, 22:43:55
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Part II Re: Part II -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/18/2002, 07:08:50
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states in continuation:
I have not discussed "The next level of expansion for ecumenical view,..." nor do I "acknowledge that other religions -- ALL other religions have equality with Christianity."JAK:
To the degree that myth has validity, Christianity has validity. Mythology is not valid explanation.My other penney's worth:
While I do not agree with Zoe here. I don't agree with you either... The up-and-coming religion, Humanism, and it's myth-they-like-to-call-science makes for a very interesting read, and to my understanding this new mythology has actually given some people meaning in their lives. If it grants meaning, a purpose for living, how can it be invalid?Zoe states:
On the contrary, I have ruled out the consideration of ALL other religious for validity, myself; however, that does not mean that I feel any need to try to compel others to accept my
view, or do not at least aspire to respect theirs (O.K. - with the notable exception of Mormonism), and I certainly am more than willing to share my convictions and my reasons for them with others (and don't you feel lucky?). And I have to say that the comparison to Bush du jour really hurts my feelings, being the fairly rabid liberal that I am.Penny of Zoe:
Ouch! Nah, not lucky in the slightest. But then again, I haven't exactly come lauding Mormon-this-Mormon-that. Perhaps I'm safe?Maybe? ... JAK:
How un-ecumenical of you. But it does demonstrate the intolerance of religion. As is usually the case -- My religion is the correct and true religion, yours is false. Or, there are two religions -- the true one MINE, and the false one -- YOURS -- or anyone’s which fails to agree in large measure with mine.Zoe states:
I don't happen to think that religion requires a high degree of comformity in details of practice and doctrine to be "valid;" people are not one-size fits all; that would really be hell. I fail to understand stand how flexibility can reasonably be unequivocally equated with weakness.More cents:
Go Zoe! The NT states that the path is narrow... What could be more narrow than an individual having their own relationship with 'that-that-provides-comfort-and-personal-meaning'?JAK:
This certainly contradicts your previous statements of exclusion in part I and your declarations above here. If you open to people are not one size, Muslim is a size. While not YOUR size, a size none the less. So extend your comparison and give Islam “validity.” And while you are doing so, let’s not forget the other great world religions and their believers.Um...:
Other religions were only initially brought up on your part. Why diverge with extra-cericular points of 'english' if we are dealing with 'story problems for math?' If the focus is Christianity, and its inherent faults and virtues, let it be so... Though, we all know I will follow your same path of fact-for-fact later on in this same post. Back to JAK:JAK (continues):
Your previous exclusions support “one size fits all.” And that “size” is Christianity -- your version of it. That was your position in this very post as you subtracted particular “Christians” from Christianity.Me again:
Once again I ask, is Zoe an authority? Your authoritive statements make that assumtion... Your logical conclusion is hidged on on input. 1) Zoe states opinion 'I disagree with some chistian denominations. 2) Zoe states opinion flexiblity (read: variation) adds and stregthens Christiandom as a whole. Logical conclusion: None - Zoe has claimed no such facts of the matter where otherwise assumed conclusion has been stated.In order to come to your conclusions, JAK we'd have to add the following inputs: 1) JAK states opinion -- as presumptive fact 'Clone thinking and (for what little stregth it has) fanatisim equals stregth' 2) JAK states opinion - presumptive fact 'diversity (for Christians) is inherently weak -- but at the same time hypocritical (for not going off topic - read: Islam, Islam) 3) Zoe shall be granted authority of presumptive fact (though she clearly labled such as individual opinions (where states - as long as they can be pigen-holed into my (read: JAK's) pre-determined point-of-view.
New Logical Conclusion: JAK has won the debate hands down...
Zoe states:
A certain degree of flexibility is, IMO, strengthening in that it counteracts brittleness. I don't believe that Christianity has "weakened," whatever that word means to you.JAK:
Quite the contrary, as I clarified earlier. The greater the dilution the weaker the juice. By diluting Christianity with the exclusions, YOU chose, you weaken. By ruling as “invalid” Christian denominations, sects, and cults, you diminish the religion as a whole.Found more penneys:
Doesn't the above statement contradict your earlier (related) statement about the juice theory? First Christianity is weakened (in your statement) for having tolerance and diversity. Then 'Christianity is weakened when one (takes your presuptive fact and) chooses to be intolerant of diverse opinion/views.'Zoe states:
Your examples of Jim Jones and Hitler are, if memory serves, excellent examples of reductio ad absurdum, but I'll leave that to Alf and Martin to sort out. In fact, since I have premised
my arguments on the model of Christianity as multidemtional (although not chaotically formless), I should think it would be obvious to you that the mere declaration of a belief, but one dimension, does not necessarily a Christian make. What do I make of Jim Jones?JAK:
Hitler declared himself Christian. Jim Jones did as well. You declare yourself Christian -- though much different that either of the other two. What is absurd is to conclude that any religion has validity. No evidence for validity of mythology can be offered to establish that one view is correct while other views are not.Um...:
And Stalin (the one who killed 20 million Jews) declared himself - and Russia Athiest; does that make Humanism a poor choice for religion? I doubt it. Back to JAK:JAK (continues):
You seem to wish it two ways. On the one hand, you exclude many Christians by asserting they are “invalid.” On the other hand, you argue for “multidenominational.” The insecurity is apparent. You want to count them all as Christian to garner power by number. At the same time, you wish to exclude all those groups which don’t comply with YOUR notion of “valid.”Um...:
Zoe... Maybe you should start your own church, beings you have such vaunted authority of the subject. Then there'd be one more demonination, which will weaken Christianity as a whole... Or would it strengthen Christiandom because we Christians finally have the truth??? Wait! Your very authority has confused me! :PZoe states:(ref: Jones, Hitler)
think he's an aberration, and am fairly sure that, upon a close examination of his teachings, which I have not made, I would find gross insistencies with and contradiction of basic Christian doctrines shared by ALL Christians.JAK:
With more than a thousand denominations, sects, and cults, Christianity is far more varied than you may wish to believe. Everyone wants to claim “God” in Christianity. Hitler was Roman Catholic -- didn’t much like the Jews. Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) didn’t much like the Jews either and raised virtually no objection to what Hitler did to the Jews at the time. (That’s another story.)Why can't you ever get rid of the penneys?:
Yes, and you'll find radicals in any religion too. Hitler is as valid an example of Christiandom, as Osama is to Islamic, as Castro is to Humanism/Athiesm. And, IMNSHO this is a very good reason for diversity of religion. Humans need something to believe in. And since belief *is* so personal, and can be seriously affected by worldly (ie human) experience, it's good to have veriety as a back-up if the religion of youth somehow fails you. That is the strength of religious diveristy...Zoe states:
Certainly, the dimesion of his actual behavior can not be considered to be Christian either, and I doubt you'll find any other Chridtian sect claiming so.JAK:
Not today.Zoe stated:
I find the Hitler example even less credible, since, regardless what Hitler may have said, it defies common sense to take him at his word on anything.JAK:
Religion and religious mythology “defies common sense.” Few today defend what Hitler did or his motives in doing it. Certainly. But your reference to “common sense” while defending irrational religion is laughable.It's raining friggin' penneys:
Even avoiding the 'common sense' argument. It is important to point out that Hitler fails to meet the core criteria -- as 'established' by Jesus Christ: Follow me (read: as an example how to live), obey these new commandments (Hittler broke the second commandment that Jesus placed on mankinds doorstep: Love they neigbor as theyself, for whatever you do to the least of you you have done to me). Then again, maybe Hitler did obey said commandment, that is if he hated himself enough to torture himself to death... It is also stated in the NT that 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Thus by Christian criteria, Hitler wasn't a Christian, he was a hypocrit...
Zoe states:
I have read some who consider Nazism to be the first wide-spread modern resurgance of Paganism, for various reasons that I won't get into. I'm comfortable with my own views, and not, with the exception of Jones, Hitler, and, now bin Laden, as recent historical examples, deeply troubled by anyone elses. I find the politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority" disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate. Do you disagree?JAK:
I think you have much inconsistency in your views, Zoe.
JAKAhhhh...:
The Beauty of opinion. I love it... Most of the time.
Waspi~
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Excellent contributions Waspinatrix! Re: Re: Part II -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/19/2002, 13:49:45
Author Profile Mail author
I don't recall having seen you post here before, but am enjoying reading you. Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Noticible typos Re: Part II -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/18/2002, 07:15:09
Author Profile Mail author
I'm sorry about all the typos on my part... :\
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Once again, I think Waspinatrix has done Re: Part II -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/19/2002, 13:22:48
Author Profile Mail author
an admirable job of covering the bases in his or her response, and I don't have a lot to add. However, I would appreciate an elaboration on your closing remark, because I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. What exactly do you find inconsistant in my views? You seem to imply that ruling out Hitler and Jim Jones as "Christians," is some prima facie evidence of "inconsistency." How so? Or perhaps you are simply saying that chosing one religion (or group of religions over another is somehow inherently "inconsistent?" If so, I strongly disagree. Please explain. Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The Inconsistency Re: Once again, I think Waspinatrix has done -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/20/2002, 14:53:21
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states: However, I would appreciate an elaboration on your closing remark, because I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. What exactly do you find inconsistant in my views? You seem to imply that ruling out Hitler and Jim Jones as "Christians," is some prima facie evidence of "inconsistency." How so? Or perhaps you are simply saying that chosing one religion (or group of religions over another is somehow inherently "inconsistent?" If so, I strongly disagree. Please explain.
JAK:
Previously you recognized that many views are to be found within a single religion -- Christianity. Your reference was to “10 different believing individuals (and, IMO, accurately so)...” You stated of Christianity “Perhaps the term describes a/many many-faceted idea(s), belief(s), behavior, asperation(s) and or hope(s).”While those ideas are have merit, they do not incorporate conflicting views of just what “Christianity” is or what it means. My reference to extremist individuals who claimed Christianity are a part of the history of that evolving religion. Although most Christians deplore some persons in their ranks, the fact remains that Christianity includes both individuals and Christian organizations which you wish to exclude from Christianity. While you may wish to do exclude, it is wishful thinking. Groups and individuals which you mentioned as “invalid” are part of the whole of that “many-faceted” Christianity which you recognized.
Zoe stated, “I find the politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority" disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate.”
The inconsistency is in your exclusion. Those groups as well as others with which you may disagree are all a part of the evolution of Christianity as a religion. Thus, your earlier statement embracing all the Christian views is weakened by your effort to exclude selectively particular Christian views. Your statement is weakened. As a religion, Christianity is weakend by exclusions its partisan sects make on other sects.
Your own position is contradictory in that at the same time you laud Christianity for its diversity, you object to particular Christian groups because their “diversity” is outside your particular vision of what IS Christian.
Many Christian doctrines are “shared” in only the hypothetical. As a matter of application, the various Christian tribes today disagree. Consider the wide diversity of Christians on killing and when it is acceptable to kill, abortion, just how and when to apply “love thy neighbor,” and a whole array of other doctrines.
We see that Baptists disagree with Methodists. Lutherans disagree with Nazarenes, Presbyterians disagree with the Church of England. These are quite random name droppings. It is because of disagreement on doctrine all the various denominations have developed or evolved. Had there been universal agreement on doctrine, there would have been no divisions in Christianity. There have been divisions and those divisions continue to occur. Those divisions do not strengthen the religion. They represent competition. That is, all denominations are competing for space at the Christian table. And each would like to have a larger space than it has at present. Evangelism in many fundamentalists groups attempts to widen a particular groups power and influence. Religious schools indoctrinating little children are an attempt to widen power and control. They hope those children will become adults who financially support THEIR sect. They claim to “teach the truth about God.” By implication, they claim views which differ from theirs fail to “teach the truth about God.” Some religious groups assert, “Our church preaches the Bible.” By implication, that suggests that other groups -- other Christian groups, do not teach the Bible, etc.
Many Christians do not recite the Nicene Creed and indeed have no “creed.”
Your position that “ease of diversity in Christianity is certainly a recommendation in favor of this belief” ignores and obfuscates the fundamental differences which prevail in Christianity. Your exclusionary approach is merely a denial of those differences.Regarding the “nature of heaven” as irrelevant is simply an escape. If one lays claim to “heaven” with an absence of specificity to what it IS, one admits to ignorance. A person remarked, “Isn’t our world wonderful?” Another agreed. Neither of those persons were among the 100,000 currently fleeing for their lives from a currently erupting volcano which has taken their home, their work, their town off the face of the earth. That view of the world is one with blinders...just as your view of Christianity is a view with blinders.
Religious doctrines are speculation. Those speculations include the nuisances of Christianity as well as the nuisances of other world religions.
I suggested to you that giving respectability to all religious views -- recognizing them as valid serves ultimately to weaken all of them.
Choosing (as you put it) one particular religious dogma over another implies that you consider one dogma to be superior to another. It implies you consider one “Christianity” better than another “Christianity.” Otherwise you would choose another version of that religion. You can’t choose ALL of them because they disagree with one another. If the Methodists are right the Roman Catholics are not right and so forth.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Jan 20, 2002, 14:57:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Inconsistency Re: The Inconsistency -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/21/2002, 00:20:58
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe states:
However, I would appreciate an elaboration on your closing remark, because I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. What exactly do you find inconsistant in my views? You seem to imply that ruling out Hitler and Jim Jones as "Christians," is some prima facie evidence of "inconsistency." How so? Or perhaps you are simply saying that chosing one religion (or group of religions over another is somehow inherently "inconsistent?" If so, I strongly disagree. Please explain.:=
JAK:
Previously you recognized that many views are to be found within a single religion -- Christianity. Your reference was to “10 different believing individuals (and, IMO, accurately so)...” You stated of Christianity “Perhaps the term describes a/many many-faceted idea(s), belief(s), behavior, asperation(s) and or hope(s).”Response:
While any given three-dimensional object has more than one side, it doesn't follow from this characteristic that said object is more than one object. The term "many-faceted," in fact, refers to such an object, a many-sided, but single object, a gem stone, which is why it was carefully chosen. Likewise, a symphony may have many movements made up of many elements, which are, however, unified by a theme. In fact, as I pointed out, there are certain things that Christians share in common (among them the doctrine of the Trinity and rejection of the Law of Moses as binding).
JAK
While those ideas are have merit, they do not incorporate conflicting views of just what “Christianity” is or what it means. My reference to extremist individuals who claimed Christianity are a part of the history of that evolving religion. Although most Christians deplore some persons in their ranks, the fact remains that Christianity includes both individuals and Christian organizations which you wish to exclude from Christianity. While you may wish to do exclude, it is wishful thinking. Groups and individuals which you mentioned as “invalid” are part of the whole of that “many-faceted” Christianity which you recognized.
Response (cont'd):
On the contrary, my ideas do incorporate all Christian views, although, perhaps not all of those you would like to incorporate, quite neatly. However, it's not my goal or responsibility to explain your misguided view. My point, among many others, is that the extremists are ruled out, because they don't meet the basic criteria of Christianity, regardless what they call themselves, how they evolved, or when, and regardless whether they seem to have sprung via process of parthenogenesis from the heart of Christianity; they can be recognized as mutations which are disqulified, even from inclusion in the same species, and are more likely germs being thrown off by the body of Christianity. I think we've been all over this question before with regard to Mormonism, and whether or not it is a Protestant religion. As I recall, no Mormons agreed with you in this classification, and I don't recall a great many others agreeing either.
Moreover, JAK, it's absurd to suggest that Mormons, let alone Jim Jones and Hitler have had any effect on the history or evolution of of Christianity. Again, you are confusing the body with the various viruses and diseases that have attacked it, and/ or mutations, in need of expulsion and/or excision from within. Neither, as far as I can tell, have Seventh Day Adventists had any appreciable influence on mainstream Christianity; rather they, like Mormons appear to be in the process of mainstreaming to attempt to become Christians (Although I doubt this will work in the case of Mormonism). Fundamentalism, a far more deadly disease, similar, perhaps to a cancer has held probably made the most effective attack by confusing individual cells of the Christian body, but I don't think it will have a lasting effect. If it were to do so, the efect would be death, because IT IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.
Zoe stated, “I find the politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority" disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate.”JAK:
The inconsistency is in your exclusion. Those groups as well as others with which you may disagree are all a part of the evolution of Christianity as a religion. Thus, your earlier statement embracing all the Christian views is weakened by your effort to exclude selectively particular Christian views. Your statement is weakened. As a religion, Christianity is weakend by exclusions its partisan sects make on other sects.
Response (cont'd):
Please see my statement regarding alleged historical influence above. You left out my question to you whether you agree that the Mormon church, Fundamentalists and "Moral Majority," induce any discomfort in you. Do they?
JAK:
Your own position is contradictory in that at the same time you laud Christianity for its diversity, you object to particular Christian groups because their “diversity” is outside your particular vision of what IS Christian.
Response (cont'd):
That's a mistatement. While not all Methodists and Episcopalians agree with me on points of doctrine, all do exclude the groups I mentioned, Once again, I said that Christianity was a many faceted, but not formlessly chaotic object. You are confuse mere complexity with inconsistency. The two are not the same, just as Mormons and Christians and Hitler are not the same. Your continued insistence that they are seems akin to an attempt at sorting the world out neatly into mutually exclusive files in one cabinet. In my experience, the world, is composed of many and many-dimesional things, some tangible, some not, and is not amenable to such a project, although, that's not to suggest that no progress is possible. I think you are likely to find nothing but confusion and inconsistency if you persist in applying this inadequate method. In other words, your program is too simple to accurately and meaningfully evaluate all the relevant data.
JAK:
Many Christian doctrines are “shared” in only the hypothetical. As a matter of application, the various Christian tribes today disagree. Consider the wide diversity of Christians on killing and when it is acceptable to kill, abortion, just how and when to apply “love thy neighbor,” and a whole array of other doctrines.
Response (cont'd):
Oh baloney JAK! Virtually all of the credibly Christian world has rejected the use of capital punishment. Europe, where the largest concentration of Christians have existed during the last millenium, has flatly rejected it. In the free world, most of which is comprised by nominally Christian, or at least very recently formerly Christian countries, only the U.S., I'm ashamed to say, embraces this barbaric practice, the home, I might add, notably of Mormonsim, Seventh Day Adventism, and, as far as I know Fundamentalism, IMO three of the surest signs of its immenent decline as a world power.
JAK:
We see that Baptists disagree with Methodists. Lutherans disagree with Nazarenes, Presbyterians disagree with the Church of England. These are quite random name droppings. It is because of disagreement on doctrine all the various denominations have developed or evolved.
Response (cont'd):
And which, if any of them has stated that any of the others are not Christian (I must confess, I don't know anything about the Nazarenes)? As I said in my post above, mainstream Christian churches do not go around excluding each other. If you disagree, then prove otherwise.
JAK:
Had there been universal agreement on doctrine, there would have been no divisions in Christianity. There have been divisions and those divisions continue to occur. Those divisions do not strengthen the religion.
Response:
Had their been universal agreement on doctrine in Christianity, there would have been no need for Christianity.
Once again, what do you mean by strengthen in this context (and please don't regale me with your fruit juice example again; it's an prime example of a false analogy)?JAK:
They represent competition. That is, all denominations are competing for space at the Christian table.
Response (cont'd):
This is particularly laughable! A large and inclusive table is a foundation of Christianity. There's no need of competition among Christians. Competition for what? If they are all Christians, they don't need to compete with each other, do they? In fact, they don't. Prove otherwise, rather than apply your mindset acquired, God and you only knows where, but I can't help suspecting Mormonism, to something you clearly know nothing about.
JAK:
And each would like to have a larger space than it has at present. Evangelism in many fundamentalists groups attempts to widen a particular groups power and influence. Religious schools indoctrinating little children are an attempt to widen power and control. They hope those children will become adults who financially support THEIR sect.
Response (cont'd):
Once again, pure baloney. Mormons are the only pseudo- Christian sect that I genuinely suspect is purely interested in numbers, as you accuse Christians of being. I've heard this from too many returned Mormon missionaries not to believe it. Since most Christian sects don'r have anything like the strict tithing system that Mormons do, but relay on donations that their congregations can actually afford, an mere increase in numbers does not necessarily equate to any increase in wealth, influence or power.
They claim to “teach the truth about God.” By implication, they claim views which differ from theirs fail to “teach the truth about God.” Some religious groups assert, “Our church preaches the Bible.” By implication, that suggests that other groups -- other Christian groups, do not teach the Bible, etc.
Response (cont'd):
Really? Your inference is not necessarily someone else's implication. What's the last of any Christian denomination that you attended, and how long ago was it? When did any of the sects I've included as Christian ever preach anything like what you suggest to you? Come on JAK, enlighten me: have you done any field research on this subject, or are these just your notions derivied from what you have managed to read on the internet?
JAK:
Many Christians do not recite the Nicene Creed and indeed have no “creed.”
Response (cont'd):
True; but, as far as I know, they don't patently reject it either. This has more to do with the Christian preference for substance over mere words, than articulable and substantial differences in doctrine.
JAK:
Your position that “ease of diversity in Christianity is certainly a recommendation in favor of this belief” ignores and obfuscates the fundamental differences which prevail in Christianity.
Response (cont'd):
Really? Like your classification of Mormonism as a Protestant Christian sect does? I haven't ignored or obfuscated anything, merely by pointing out that the differences that exist among, say Methodists and Espicopalinas have nothing to do with the essence of Christianity, while those between Mormons and Methodists or Episcopalians, however, do. In fact, Mormonism has less in common with either of these two Christian religions, than they do with the Catholicism from which they directly or indirectly broke away.
JAK:
Your exclusionary approach is merely a denial of those differences.
Response (cont'd):
Respectfully JAK, mine is not an exclusionary approach here. However, since you insist on describing it as such, and to borrow from, I believe Waspi, please expalin why you as an atheist or agnostic (yet another question you've not bothered to answer) countenance mass murders such as those committed by the famous atheists Stalin and Pol Pot. I mean do you see what atheism, no doubt inevitably, leads to?
JAK:
Regarding the “nature of heaven” as irrelevant is simply an escape. If one lays claim to “heaven” with an absence of specificity to what it IS, one admits to ignorance. A person remarked, “Isn’t our world wonderful?” Another agreed. Neither of those persons were among the 100,000 currently fleeing for their lives from a currently erupting volcano which has taken their home, their work, their town off the face of the earth. That view of the world is one with blinders...just as your view of Christianity is a view with blinders.
Response (cont'd):
Respectfully JAK, I manage to find my way around quite well, blinders or no. I am worried about you though.
JAK:
Religious doctrines are speculation. Those speculations include the nuisances of Christianity as well as the nuisances of other world religions.
Response (cont'd):
Yes; they are speculation. So is the stock market and the U.S. dollar, and just about everything else we encounter in life. As in life, there are inteligent speculations, and not so intelligent ones, and some which may seem intelligent, but, like ENRON, in fact, turn out not to be. I'm personally, recently and directly descended from two men, my father and grandfather, who successfully earned their livings gambling (literally playing games for money). As in life, a little understanding of the rules, the odds, and human nature, makes a big difference. At present, the sciences only have anything reliable to offer on one of those topics. Nevertheless, you still have to make your choices and take your chances. I hope your views, as simplistic as they seem to me, from reading you, never fail you, but as I suggested above, I think you need to upgrade your program.
JAK:
I suggested to you that giving respectability to all religious views -- recognizing them as valid serves ultimately to weaken all of them.
Response (cont'd):
And I reminded you that I hadn't made any such suggestion.
JAK:
Choosing (as you put it) one particular religious dogma over another implies that you consider one dogma to be superior to another. It implies you consider one “Christianity” better than another “Christianity.” Otherwise you would choose another version of that religion. You can’t choose ALL of them because they disagree with one another. If the Methodists are right the Roman Catholics are not right and so forth.
Response (cont'd):
Dogma is your term, not mine, and denotes "a doctrine or doctrines put forward by some authority ...to be accepted as true without question" (Oxford American Dictionary, first paperback edition), which is in my view, antithetical to Christianity. In fact, if you've paid any attention to my views expressed in this forum, they are anything but dogmatic. I dealt with the issue of "authority," just recently, if not on this thread, on the heaven thread below. However, it's rather dogmatic to assume, as you do, that all religion is dogmatic, based upon your experience, whatever that may be. Your argument, therefore, simply doesn't have anything to do with my views.
Well Jak, you have worn me out whether you intended to or not. I'll try to get to the other thread tomorrow. I have to say, I'm a little tired of trying to answer all of your questions only to have mine ignored. If you don't want to discuss your background, that's certainly your business, but I'd like to see some answers to my other questions: what are your current views? How do you classify them? What difference is there between your non-believeing views and the equally non-believeing views Stalin and Pol Pot? Why should I not be just as wary of Atheism as you are of religion, based upon the actions of these two?
ZoePS: I attempted to use the spell check, but had a problem pasting the corrected version back. I hope I caught all my goofs when I re-reviewed. I'll keep practicing on shorter posts.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Part I of 2 Re: Re: The Inconsistency -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/21/2002, 22:22:01
Author Profile Mail author
First I compliment you on your efforts to be organized here. You have done a fine job of putting together comments and responses. We can do it once or twice, then the complications get difficult because of the distance back previously stated comments were made. With that in mind, and with appreciation for your efforts, I shall respond beginning with a comment from you first.
Zoe states:
However, I would appreciate an elaboration on your closing remark, because I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. What exactly do you find inconsistant in my views? You seem to imply that ruling out Hitler and Jim Jones as "Christians," is some prima facie evidence of "inconsistency." How so? Or perhaps you are simply saying that chosing one religion (or group of religions over another is somehow inherently "inconsistent?" If so, I strongly disagree. Please explain.JAK:
Previously you recognized that many views are to be found within a single religion -- Christianity. Your reference was to “10 different believing individuals (and, IMO, accurately so)...” You stated of Christianity “Perhaps the term describes a/many many-faceted idea(s), belief(s), behavior, aspiration(s) and or hope(s).”Zoe Response:
While any given three-dimensional object has more than one side, it doesn't follow from this characteristic that said object is more than one object. The term "many-faceted," in fact, refers to such an object, a many-sided, but single object, a gem stone, which is why it was carefully chosen. Likewise, a symphony may have many movements made up of many elements, which are, however, unified by a theme. In fact, as I pointed out, there are certain things that Christians share in common (among them the doctrine of the Trinity and rejection of the Law of Moses as binding).JAK:
Actually, the notion of the trinity was a product of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and was largely a marketing device of the emperor Constintine. It was not only used to perpetuate Christianity but the power of Rome. It is important to note that the East and West branches of the church later disagreed as to how the “Holy Spirit” proceeds from the other divine persons. The Eastern Church held that the “Son” comes from the “Father” and the “Spirit” comes from the “Father” through the “Son.” The Western Church held that the “Spirit” comes from “Father” and “Son” together. Many Christian churches perpetuate the doctrine that all three have equal power. Many also perpetuate the doctrine that the “Father creates, the “Son” saves souls, and the “Spirit” makes holy.While the earliest notions of these doctrines were developed in that first council, they are all speculations codified by creed to market the religion and to extend power and influence of the Roman Empire.
None of these beliefs nor the belief systems with variations on the theme have any evidential support. And many denominations today do not even reproduce the early creeds in their literature or recite them in their services. There are a variety of reasons for the modifications and omissions of early doctrines. Insufficient space exists here to explore the many Protestant views and use or lack of use for particular creeds.
JAK:
While those ideas are have merit, they do not incorporate conflicting views of just what “Christianity” is or what it means. My reference to extremist individuals who claimed Christianity are a part of the history of that evolving religion. Although most Christians deplore some persons in their ranks, the fact remains that Christianity includes both individuals and Christian organizations which you wish to exclude from Christianity. While you may wish to do exclude, it is wishful thinking. Groups and individuals which you mentioned as “invalid” are part of the whole of that “many-faceted” Christianity which you recognized.Zoe Response (cont'd):
On the contrary, my ideas do incorporate all Christian views, although, perhaps not all of those you would like to incorporate, quite neatly. However, it's not my goal or responsibility to explain your misguided view.JAK:
The meaning of this is unclear. “All Christian views” as you have used that phrase seems to have excluded those views which you personally reject. So you simply exclude by your own assertion. That is quite unacceptable in my view. No individual can simply by fiat declare that persons or groups which declare themselves to be “Christian” can simply say, “no they are not.”Zoe Response (cont’d):
My point, among many others, is that the extremists are ruled out, because they don't meet the basic criteria of Christianity, regardless what they call themselves, how they evolved, or when, and regardless whether they seem to have sprung via process of parthenogenesis from the heart of Christianity; they can be recognized as mutations which are disqulified, even from inclusion in the same species, and are more likely germs being thrown off by the body of Christianity.JAK:
Who is to decide when the line has been crossed to classify as “extremist”? I quite disagree with that notion. You, Zoe, do not decide what persons or what groups “don’t meet the basic criteria of Christianity.” You are not qualified to do that nor is anyone else. This is precisely the exclusion you attempt to make personally. You set yourself up as judge as to who can “meet the basic criteria of Christianity.” It is wishful thinking on your part just as it would be if anyone else did the same thing. Of course they DO do that. I have heard Baptists say, “Roman Catholics are not Christian.” It is an absurd position. The Roman Catholic Church was here long before the Protestant Reformation of which the Baptist organizations are a part.So we disagree. “What they call themselves” is critical to analysis of their place in historical perspective. Roman Catholics call themselves “Christian” in the scope of world religions. Your emotional pejorative spin-off on “species,” “mutations,” and “germs” is your own personal attempt to set yourself up as a judge of who is Christian and who is not. It is historically wrong and inaccurate. Groups which call themselves Christian, use the Bible and other writings (creeds, etc.) to support their particular version of Christianity ARE Christian. Your attempt to set yourself as a one-person judge is preposterous.
Zoe Response (cont’d):
I think we've been all over this question before with regard to Mormonism, and whether or not it is a Protestant religion. As I recall, no Mormons agreed with you in this classification, and I don't recall a great many others agreeing either.JAK:
The Americana and Britannica encyclopedias (two separate publications) name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” as a denomination in Christianity. I stated the official name to establish this denomination is plainly and without doubt a denomination of Christianity. Those are prepared encyclopedias, general reference works, used in high schools and universities throughout the world. If you want to cite some equally respected publications for which you can demonstrate the same degree of scholarship and objectivity with regard to the subject of world religions which delists Mormon (the short name) from the fabric of Christianity, I’ll take a look. The Protestant Reformation began in 1511 with the protests of Martin Luther. Cults, sects, and denominations which followed in the wake of Martin Luther’s objections to Roman Catholic practice (post 1511) and which were in opposition to the Roman Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches are Protestant.A citation for you from the World Book Encyclopedia (a third publication):
“Protestantism is the religion of Christians who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church or to one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Protestantism includes hundreds of denominations and sects that differ greatly or slightly from one another.”Your opinion not withstanding, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” are, ARE clearly within the collection of denominations and sects that are Protestant in classification by any objective publication regarding world religions. The historical period for the beginnings of these groups was in the mid 1800s.
Zoe (cont’d):
Moreover, JAK, it's absurd to suggest that Mormons, let alone Jim Jones and Hitler have had any effect on the history or evolution of Christianity.JAK:
They are a part of the history of Christianity. They are evolutionary pieces preceded by earlier pieces (organizations and individuals) which claimed the Bible and Christianity earlier.Zoe (cont’d):
Again, you are confusing the body with the various viruses and diseases that have attacked it, and/ or mutations, in need of expulsion and/or excision from within.JAK:
The development and evolution of Christianity includes the wide variety of people, ideas, organizations, and most importantly doctrinal shifts which have materialized along the way in the historical development of any religion. Each time a different or new notion of some dimension of a religion emerges, that fact becomes a part of the development. Even if it dies out, as we are able to identify it and have reliable information about it, such information is part of the history. Your attempt to minimize by use of a pejorative analogy is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is the development and modifications which dominate and alter the historical tracks of religion.To be sure some groups have died out. The Shakers are members of a religious sect named “The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearance.” Founded about 1772 in Manchester, England, members are called “Shakers” because early in their history they shook with emotion during religious services. Basic principles of the sect included virgin purity, love, peace, and justice. Shakers expressed these principles through the practice of celibacy, universal brotherhood, nonviolence and sharing of all property and goods. They believe God is both make and female and their founder Ann Lee was called “Mother Ann.”
In about 1850, the Shakers were at their height from Maine to Kentucky. Because Shakers do not believe in marriage or bearing children, they depend on conversions and adoptions to maintain membership. They began to decline after the end of the Civil war in 1865. The few remaining Shakers live in two communities, Sabbathday Lake, ME and Canterbury N.H.
Of course, they are a part of the fabric of Christianity, albeit a very small part today. They read the Bible and are a Protestant sect about to become extinct. The fact that they have little in common with other Protestant groups does not exclude them from the classification.
So it is important to keep historical perspective, Zoe, when reviewing the historical tracks of the religion Christianity. Your attempt to exclude particular groups who call themselves Christians because your own personal interpretation is at variance with theirs is a distortion.
Zoe (con’t):
Neither, as far as I can tell, have Seventh Day Adventists had any appreciable influence on mainstream Christianity; rather they, like Mormons appear to be in the process of mainstreaming to attempt to become Christians (Although I doubt this will work in the case of Mormonism).JAK:
The degree to which any particular group has “influence” is a matter of evaluation. You recognize in this above in comment that it is possible for groups to separate, reorganize, or regroup along their historical path. Whether you are correct about these particular groups with regard to their future, only time will tell. Generally, when groups join with other groups it is to gain power. If a particular sect feels isolate, small, and insignificant, it may well decide (if it has that much organization at the top) to join with another group in a similar predicament. Groups that are strong in numbers and feel no need to garner strength by merger, generally reject overtures by less significant sects to “tailcoat” and join with them.Zoe (con’t):
Fundamentalism, a far more deadly disease, similar, perhaps to a cancer has held probably made the most effective attack by confusing individual cells of the Christian body, but I don't think it will have a lasting effect. If it were to do so, the efect would be death, because IT IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.JAK:
You are working too hard to stretch analogy. Your thesis attempting to dissociate Christian fundamentalism from Christianity continues in your attempt to deny historical evolution of Christianity. Fundamentalism is a significant part of Christianity today. Without reviewing my previous posts on it, the fact of its existence can hardly be dismissed (as your comment would suggest). The degree to which fundamentalism will have wide appeal is certainly an unfinished story as a characteristic of Christianity. At present, it is growing. The degree to which “it will have a lasting effect” has yet to be determined. It would appear it is good for decades if not centuries to come.Fundamentalism has a universal appeal for the emotionally insecure who want a religion of absolutes. I predict we are going to have individuals who fit that profile for a long time. Consider the evangelizing of third world countries. It will be a fertile place for fundamentalists in the future.
In any case, you continue to play “king” in declaring what “IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.” It is not your job nor can you make truth by assertion.
Zoe stated, “I find the politically overreaching Mormon church, Christian Fundamentalists, and "Moral Majority" disturbing, so I guess it's fair to say I'm uncomfortable with them, as I think is appropriate.”
JAK:
It is curious that in your earlier posts, you attempted to see me as “uncomfortable” with the wide scope of Christianity. Now you demonstrate that it is you who are “uncomfortable” with groups of “Christians” which you identify here. What you find “disturbing” is irrelevant. The issue is the scope of encompassing denominations, sects, and cults which are regarded by the academic world as a part of Christianity. They are all there. The fact one person or one group rejects OTHER groups as “not Christian” is meaningless with regard to the historical development and evolution of Christianity. Your “cancer” or “virus” is another Christians true religion.It seems as if you should be able to recognize that, Zoe. You don’t have any corner on Christianity. Your notions of what it is or is not in no way establish what it is or is not. I doubt you would agree with the “Shakers” on much of anything. They read the same Bible as you do. They drew and draw their doctrines and practices from the same Bible as do you draw yours. Because the Bible taken as a whole is subject to wildly differing interpretations, NONE of those interpretations including your interpretation is reliable to stand as truth of any kind. All the interpretations are filled with speculations. These varying interpretations are exactly what has given rise to the many, many denominations. And to some degree, each of these denominations wishes to view its interpretations as “Christian” and other more deviant interpretations from their own as “NOT Christian.”
You are no different than any other pontificating Christian declaring a pox on the house of any Christian whom you have, in kingly declaration, decided against.
JAK:
The inconsistency is in your exclusion. Those groups as well as others with which you may disagree are all a part of the evolution of Christianity as a religion. Thus, your earlier statement embracing all the Christian views is weakened by your effort to exclude selectively particular Christian views. Your statement is weakened. As a religion, Christianity is weakened by exclusions its partisan sects make on other sects.Zoe Response (cont'd):
Please see my statement regarding alleged historical influence above. You left out my question to you whether you agree that the Mormon church, Fundamentalists and "Moral Majority," induce any discomfort in you. Do they?JAK:
All religion is discomforting. Religion substitutes doctrine for discovery. Religion advocates ignorance over investigation. Religion is a cancer and virus on the mind. Its strength lies in its unquestioned enthusiastic support for doctrine.JAK:
Your own position is contradictory in that at the same time you laud Christianity for its diversity, you object to particular Christian groups because their “diversity” is outside your particular vision of what IS Christian.Zoe Response (cont'd):
That's a mistatement. While not all Methodists and Episcopalians agree with me on points of doctrine, all do exclude the groups I mentioned, Once again, I said that Christia
