Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
God has put us here for a reason
Options
Comments
-
-
I think the problem arises where you take one more extreme expression of Christianity and assert that it is definitive of Christianity in general. Given the schisms in the history of Christianity and the large number of different churches that refer to themselves as Christian, I'm of then opinion that there isn't a single definitive meaning for "Christian" beyond that given in standard English dictionaries. I don't believe for example that the hellfire and brimstone, turn or burn style of Christianity is typical most Irish people's understanding of what it means to be Christian. Nor for that matter is Evangelicalism any way representative, with under 10 thousand Evangelical Christians recorded in this country in 2016 versus 3.7 million Catholics (and 486 thousand non-religious FWIW).
The declarations of those particular Christians who say gay people are going to hell, or that you're not a Christian if you don't meet their narrow definition of the word, really need to be taken with a pinch of salt as, in the context of this country, they really only speak for a very small minority at this point in time.
Don't want to keep raking over this, but do you really think it's extreme to say that a Christian is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ? Or does the problem come in when we try to attach any concrete content to that profession? I find your position on this fascinating and baffling in equal measure
I'd have thought the numbers argument is pretty irrelevant (other than the degree to which evangelical Christianity is likely to become a generally significant influence in Irish society). If numbers are what counts then you would have to conclude that atheism is false, as the majority of people alive today profess some sort of religious belief.0 -
Don't want to keep raking over this, but do you really think it's extreme to say that a Christian is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ? Or does the problem come in when we try to attach any concrete content to that profession? I find your position on this fascinating and baffling in equal measure
I don't think that this is an extreme definition, merely that it is one of many equally valid definitions of what Christian means in the English language. Interesting that if using your definition "one who professes faith in Jesus Christ" includes non-trinitarian Christians such as Mormons and excludes anyone before the age of reason or with an illness resulting is loss of mental faculties. Going with the forum definition excludes non-trinitarians but does not exclude anyone based on any given passage from the bible. Personally, I'll stick with dictionary definitions of the definitive meaning of the word Christian, same as for the definitive meaning of any other word. No sure why you'd find that unusual.I'd have thought the numbers argument is pretty irrelevant (other than the degree to which evangelical Christianity is likely to become a generally significant influence in Irish society). If numbers are what counts then you would have to conclude that atheism is false, as the majority of people alive today profess some sort of religious belief.
The numbers are important to illustrate that your understanding of what it means to be Christian, while valid in my opinion, is just one of many different such understandings. When you say that someone who professes to be Christian isn't in fact Christian all I see is pots and kettles and yet another repetition of the fractious nature of a religion locked in an endless and rather ugly internal power struggle.0 -
-
I don't think that this is an extreme definition, merely that it is one of many equally valid definitions of what Christian means in the English language. Interesting that if using your definition "one who professes faith in Jesus Christ" includes non-trinitarian Christians such as Mormons and excludes anyone before the age of reason or with an illness resulting is loss of mental faculties.
This is why it's important to tie such profession to some minimum theological content, such as the apostles creed. Otherwise, professing belief in Jesus can quite literally mean anything we want it to mean. The Apostles Creed is as broad as possible (taking in Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions), and yet excludes those like Mormons whose ideas of who Jesus is cannot be reconciled with the bible - I think the forum charter is spot on with that.
Strictly speaking, I suppose very small children and the severely mentally disabled aren't Christians in that sense, but that doesn't mean they are thereby excluded from the kingdom. That can safely be left to God's goodness, love and mercy.Going with the forum definition excludes non-trinitarians but does not exclude anyone based on any given passage from the bible. Personally, I'll stick with dictionary definitions of the definitive meaning of the word Christian, same as for the definitive meaning of any other word. No sure why you'd find that unusual.
Definitive, but not authoritative?
The numbers are important to illustrate that your understanding of what it means to be Christian, while valid in my opinion, is just one of many different such understandings. When you say that someone who professes to be Christian isn't in fact Christian all I see is pots and kettles and yet another repetition of the fractious nature of a religion locked in an endless and rather ugly internal power struggle.
Your post modernism is showing! Everything isn't about an exercise of power, and I don't think that truth is ultimately relative. But I think we've talked about that several times already, and I feel like I understand your perspective. Hopefully you understand mine.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
theological wrote: »Paul says that God has made us His offspring. Does that encourage you? Why or why not?
I find this immensely encouraging - that the God of the universe would take an interest in the likes of us (and me specifically). That's why the doctrine of election that we've been discussing a bit on this thread is so encouraging - God is in control and has a fixed purpose, and that can't be deflected by anything we do or don't do.
It also leads me to reflect on that other question that came up again here (forgive me!). While it's enjoyable and sharpening to discuss these things, for the Christian it isn't a game or a passing interest. We are talking about matters of eternal significance, and without a God who is in control that would be overwhelming. 0 -
It also leads me to reflect on that other question that came up again here (forgive me!). While it's enjoyable and sharpening to discuss these things, for the Christian it isn't a game or a passing interest. We are talking about matters of eternal significance, and without a God who is in control that would be overwhelming.
Agreed.
Our behaviour in this life determines our eternal fate after physical death. The stakes and the consequences could not be higher therefore. On reflection and deep meditation, the stakes and consequence can seem to be overwhelming in fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
And yet I've never referred to myself as post modern. You seem very keen to pigeon hole others to suit your own world view. Why is that?
What you were saying seemed to have that flavour about it - truth being relative etc. (I think your word was subjective). If I've got you wrong, then I apologise unreservedly
I'm not interested in pigeon holing anyone, just trying to make sense of what you're saying and why we differ.0 -
-
-
-
What you were saying seemed to have that flavour about it - truth being relative etc. (I think your word was subjective). If I've got you wrong, then I apologise unreservedly
I'm not interested in pigeon holing anyone, just trying to make sense of what you're saying and why we differ.
Fair enough. I'd tend to go with Karl Popper's stance with respect to falsifiability and knowledge, that is that we can't consider a thing to be knowledge unless it is potentially falsifiable. More simply perhaps, anything we now hold true can be either improved upon or even reversed as our understanding increases.
This isn't post-modernism, it is critical rationalism. Some good discussion distinguishing knowledge and belief here.0 -
Fair enough. I'd tend to go with Karl Popper's stance with respect to falsifiability and knowledge, that is that we can't consider a thing to be knowledge unless it is potentially falsifiable. More simply perhaps, anything we now hold true can be either improved upon or even reversed as our understanding increases.
This isn't post-modernism, it it is critical rationalism. Some good discussion distinguishing knowledge and belief here.
Thanks smacl, that's really helpful. Maybe the truth is out there after all?
It's interesting that Christianity is, at least in theory, falsifiable under those terms. I'm thinking specifically of the resurrection - an event that we claim happened in a particular place at a specific point in time. If that could be shown to be a falsehood, then Christianity collapses. We would, as Paul said, be of all people most to be pitied.
There's also the wider question of what should be considered valid corroborating evidence, and thus move Christianity along the scale from irrational unbelief to rational belief. That seems like an obvious point of disagreement, and brings us back to our foundational presuppositions.
Could be an interesting topic for a new thread!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Thanks smacl, that's really helpful. Maybe the truth is out there after all?
Could be, though if you agree with Popper it isn't knowable.It's interesting that Christianity is, at least in theory, falsifiable under those terms. I'm thinking specifically of the resurrection - an event that we claim happened in a particular place at a specific point in time. If that could be shown to be a falsehood, then Christianity collapses. We would, as Paul said, be of all people most to be pitied.
There's also the wider question of what should be considered valid corroborating evidence, and thus move Christianity along the scale from irrational unbelief to rational belief. That seems like an obvious point of disagreement, and brings us back to our foundational presuppositions.
Could be an interesting topic for a new thread!
Agreed. If you allow that Christianity may be falsifiable, you also open up the possibility of it being a rational belief. In doing so however, you have to discard your notions of knowing any absolute truths.
From a logical abstract perspective this seems reasonable, as to know a non-falsifiable truth would demand omniscience, and people aren't omniscient.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement