What is Christianity?

1400 views
Skip to first unread message

Oxyaena

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 8:20:23 PM12/8/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.

[reposted from a post of mine on a BBS.]

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 9:20:24 PM12/8/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The question is, "what do you want to call Christianity?" It's just about how you decide to use the word. As long as you can explain the Mormon or Muslim or Unitarian position on Jesus accurately, it's just a question of word usage whether you include them in "Christian" or not.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 10:45:24 PM12/8/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:20:23 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
Some try to argue that it is belief consistent with the Nicene Creed that
qualifies one to be a Christian. Of course, the nature of things is that
many of nevertheless believe themselves to be Christians take issue
with certain aspects of the Nicene Creed. Of course, you probably want
to review the existence of schisms going back to Docetian views. You might
find it fun to look up Sethians and then follow various leads. And of course
one simply can't help but toss in a joke here.

https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8
Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region ...

Oxyaena

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 1:40:24 AM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/8/2021 10:43 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:20:23 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
>>
>> [reposted from a post of mine on a BBS.]
>
> Some try to argue that it is belief consistent with the Nicene Creed that
> qualifies one to be a Christian.

That definition is fine and dandy, but the Nicene Creed post-dates the
genesis of Christianity by several centuries, so what definition should
we use to cover the period in-between the genesis of Christianity and
the convening of the Council of Nicaea? We could use Pauline
Christianity, but Paul is a distinct figure from Christ, with distinct
teachings (as far as we can tell what the teachings of Christ actually
were) from Christ. I'd argue the only reason Pauline Christianity is
predominant today as opposed to Jewish Christianity and Gnosticism is
because Pauline Christianity just so happened to be the movement that
took root in Rome. The only thing Gnosticism, Jewish Christianity, and
Pauline Christianity all have in common is that their beliefs center
around the Christ figure.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 5:45:24 AM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You could argue the same for "dog" that covers Chihuahuas and Great
Danes, or for that matter "the" theory of evolution (or any scientific
theory). They are all "genetic" in the sense that there is a common
ancestor from which they evolved. As with all things that evolve, it can
be difficult to determine if speciation has occurred, and things get
fuzzy in the margins.

One way to think about the different Christian creeds might be like a
ring species. Orthodox Mormons are non-trinitarians, so reject the
apostolic creed, but the Community of Christ variety of
Mormonism is Trinitarian. And some protestant churches whose baptism is
recognized by mainstream christian churches also recognize Mormon
baptism. By contrast, Islam is outside this ring, notwithstanding that
Islam and Christianity have Judaism as Last common ancestor.

mig själv

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 6:40:24 AM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Every christian has their own version of christianity so christianity is billions of diffrent religions.
Few christians has read the entire Bible
Most christians ignore most of Bible.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 12:10:24 PM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'd say you could try something like this "A religion is Christian if there is no person more central to it's belief system than Jesus." That would exclude Islam and other religions that include Jesus as one of many prophets. It would include Mormons, since Joseph Smith is not more central than Jesus, and it would include various non-Trinitarian and otherwise "heretical" forms of Christianity which still place Jesus at the center of things.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 1:20:24 PM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Emo's best work...

jillery

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 3:55:24 PM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 01:38:56 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Your comments above make an excellent historical point which most
Christians conveniently forget. IMO the Islamic Expansion during the
Middle Ages did more to establish the dominance of Pauline
Christianity than did the Council of Nicea, or any other action before
or since, by destroying and/or suppressing non-Pauline churches in
North Africa and the Middle East.


>> Of course, the nature of things is that
>> many of nevertheless believe themselves to be Christians take issue
>> with certain aspects of the Nicene Creed. Of course, you probably want
>> to review the existence of schisms going back to Docetian views. You might
>> find it fun to look up Sethians and then follow various leads. And of course
>> one simply can't help but toss in a joke here.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8https://youtu.be/l3fAcxcxoZ8
>> Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region ...
>>

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

Kalkidas

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 6:55:24 PM12/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It's the path of logos.

Oxyaena

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 7:50:24 AM12/12/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I've had it suggested to me before that Islam was introduced as a
compromise of sorts between Arab Jews and Christians, you can see this
with the sort of middle ground Islam takes on many issues, with Judaism
and Christianity representing extremes. Breadtuber Viki1999 posits this
exact point in their video "Learning about Judeo-Christian Values:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq17Cs7BwdA

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Oxyaena

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 7:55:24 AM12/12/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I should clarify: Viki1999 points out that Islam takes a middle ground
of sorts between Christianity and Judaism on many issues, not that Islam
was introduced as a fundamental compromise between Arab Judaism and Arab
Christianity.

jillery

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:55:24 AM12/12/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:53:14 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Assuming your "your" is the inclusive form, my impression is Islam
takes a middle ground only wrt the nature of Jesus, to be similar to
Mohammad, in that Jesus was an earlier prophet aka messenger of the
Book but not the Son or Spirit of God. So that's contrary to Pauline
doctrine and similar to Unitarianism.

However, in most respects, Islamic traditions and doctrines are quite
similar to Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, ex. circumcision,
separation of the sexes, so in that sense both are very much Semitic
religions, while Christianity has largely exapted Roman traditions
lacking in both Islam and Judaism.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:35:24 AM12/12/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Oxyaena wrote:
>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
>>
>> [reposted from a post of mine on a BBS.]
>>
> You could argue the same for "dog" that covers Chihuahuas and Great
> Danes, or for that matter "the" theory of evolution (or any scientific
> theory). They are all "genetic" in the sense that there is a common
> ancestor from which they evolved. As with all things that evolve, it can
> be difficult to determine if speciation has occurred, and things get
> fuzzy in the margins.
>
Dogs and bears are close but don’t do the nasty. Wolves and coyotes might
do the nasty (see coywolves and perhaps red wolves). Red wolves may be
fuzzy in the margins too.
>
> One way to think about the different Christian creeds might be like a
> ring species. Orthodox Mormons are non-trinitarians, so reject the
> apostolic creed, but the Community of Christ variety of
> Mormonism is Trinitarian. And some protestant churches whose baptism is
> recognized by mainstream christian churches also recognize Mormon
> baptism. By contrast, Islam is outside this ring, notwithstanding that
> Islam and Christianity have Judaism as Last common ancestor.
>
Actually your dog comparison may be doing more heavy lifting than you
realize. Sure what we see as breeds, especially chihuahua and great danes
are sorta surrogates for incipient species. And the branching radiation of
faiths seem similar here. We have the Abramic cluster of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Somewhere in the back is Zoroastrianism. We have
the Dharmic cluster of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and later Sikhism.

Fine. But the similarity with dog breeds gets interesting since religions
are either mutts or designer breeds (labradoodles). From my understanding
toy breeds have some chihuahua in them. Christianities are often a result
of lateral transfer or mixing. In Cuba for instance there are Africanized
versions of Lazarus. In Europe pagan traditions got hybridized into
Christianity too. The Cathars and Bogomils were distantly influenced by
some Iranian heresy.

Islam inherited Arabian pagan beliefs as it also came to terms with
characters such as Musa and Isa. I’m not even going to get into whatever it
is that became Druze beliefs. Sufism may too have a hybrid nature.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 3:30:25 AM12/13/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
divinity of Christ and tries to follow his teachings. Moslems do not
accept his divinity and I don't think Mormons believe Joseph Smith was
divine.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 4:45:25 AM12/13/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
>>
>
>
> Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
> divinity of Christ

Ahhh, but would that rule out adoptionists? Some of them, or all of
them? What about arianism? Sure, all ruled heretic by the early church,
but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course

Glenn

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 11:25:25 AM12/13/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson

Apparently Martin would deny Jefferson's claim of being a Christian.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 3:45:24 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:43:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
>>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
>>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
>>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
>>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
>>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
>>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
>>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
>> divinity of Christ
>
>Ahhh, but would that rule out adoptionists? Some of them, or all of
>them? What about arianism? Sure, all ruled heretic by the early church,

They were judged not to be Christian by those who were the accepted
authorities in regard to Christian belief and practice - seems fair
enough with me. I see an analogy here with science and ID. Proponents
of ID like to make out that they are doing science but the
overwhelming consensus among practising scientists is that ID doesn't
even come close to being science and that conclusion is accepted among
the scientific community at large.

Anyone can call themselves Christian or any other designation, but
unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in
the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 3:55:24 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:21:17 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion,
Theistic rationalism, and Unitarianism.[3] He was sympathetic to and
in general agreement with the moral precepts of Christianity.[4]"

This is just the latest in a long-running series of cites posted by
you which state the opposite of what you seem to think they state. I
can't figure out whether you just don't bother reading the things you
cite or whether you suffer from sort of comprehension deficit.

Then again, I could be wrong, maybe you're not disagreeing with what
the article says, it might be it might just be your total inability to
clearly express your own arguments.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 6:10:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:45:24 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:43:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
> >>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
> >>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
> >>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
> >>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
> >>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
> >>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
> >>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
> >> divinity of Christ
> >
> >Ahhh, but would that rule out adoptionists? Some of them, or all of
> >them? What about arianism? Sure, all ruled heretic by the early church,
> They were judged not to be Christian by those who were the accepted
> authorities in regard to Christian belief and practice - seems fair
> enough with me.

The winners write the history.


>I see an analogy here with science and ID. Proponents
> of ID like to make out that they are doing science but the
> overwhelming consensus among practising scientists is that ID doesn't
> even come close to being science and that conclusion is accepted among
> the scientific community at large.
>
> Anyone can call themselves Christian or any other designation, but
> unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in
> the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless.
> >but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course

Catholics are a minority among Christians. So far it's only a fraction of the Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christians, but if it became a majority, would Catholics then no longer be Christian?

Glenn

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 8:45:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nothing but insults here, except for the quote. Here's another: "consistently referred to himself as a Christian".

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 11:35:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Couple of problems with that I'd say. The first is a rather
counterintuitive (to say the least) outcome. You include Mormonism
(doubly odd as they have an adaptionist bend) within the Christian
label, but you exclude the ebonites, thinkers such as Theodotus,
Elipandus of Toledo (an archbishop in the church)or bishop Felix of
Urgel, and quite possibly Peter Abelard and Duns Scotus. All of these
groups and thinkers, from early Christianity to the scholastics. By any
meaningful measure, they are much closer to mainstream Christianity than
Mormonism, with disagreements about something that for most people is a
rather abstract theological point.

Indeed, if Bart Ehrmans "evolutionary" theory holds, then the early
Church, possibly for the first 150 years at least, was predominantly or
exclusively adoptionist (what he calls "low Christology), "high
Christiology" the later invention.

So if one follwoed your argument to its logical conclusion, then there
were no Christians until around 150AD, but Mormons are Christians, and I
just don't think that makes sense.

The second is the argument from authority, which I think does not hold
on historical grounds, and the analogy fails on systematic grounds. The
decision to declare Arianism a heresy was not the result of a
quasi-scientific inquiry or a reasoned debate, nor was it a decision by
"the duly constituted authorities - in fact the very concept of
authority only came about as a result of this conflict. It was a power
ploy where an ad-hoc coalition of smaller groups managed to align
themselves with the pagan authorities - at least partially due to the
fact that the Arians had their main followship among the unruly Visogoth
in Spain. And even then the victory was far from complete, and right to
the 7th century, Lombards Goths and Vandals were predominately Arians
(and largely left in peace, also because Constantine II had been Arian)
You'd be hard pressed to find any objective criterion why they were not
just wrong, but so wrong to not count as Christians at all.

And that, apart from the ahistoricity, is the other reason the analogy
does not work. For the science label, it wither becomes a sociological
question of observing what scientists do - and there numbers matter, but
you don;t have them with these religions disputes, or there is some
"fact of the matter", some external criterion that gives us good reasons
to put the label "science" on one activity not the other. I don't see
what the equivalent in this theological dispute would be,

as for the argument by number, and the argument by "officially declared
heresy" - well, that would rule out Protestants. Or Catholics. At least
for most of their respective histories. Again not a position that looks
defensible to me.

Sure, the label "Christian"" must have some meaning beyond mere
self-declaration. I offered a "genetic" one: evolved from the early
Christian communities. That avoids most of these issues, and for Mormons
raises the issue if speciation has occurred, which again to me seems
plausible (that there should be an argument - not opining either way)

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 11:50:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:45:24 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
That jumps headlong into the church as a political authority, not a religious one.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 11:50:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 03:06:30 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:45:24 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:43:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
>> >>> could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
>> >>> Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
>> >>> It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
>> >>> Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
>> >>> Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
>> >>> figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
>> >>> as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
>> >> divinity of Christ
>> >
>> >Ahhh, but would that rule out adoptionists? Some of them, or all of
>> >them? What about arianism? Sure, all ruled heretic by the early church,
>> They were judged not to be Christian by those who were the accepted
>> authorities in regard to Christian belief and practice - seems fair
>> enough with me.
>
>The winners write the history.

It wasn't history when the decisions were made and documented.
>
>
>>I see an analogy here with science and ID. Proponents
>> of ID like to make out that they are doing science but the
>> overwhelming consensus among practising scientists is that ID doesn't
>> even come close to being science and that conclusion is accepted among
>> the scientific community at large.
>>
>> Anyone can call themselves Christian or any other designation, but
>> unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in
>> the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless.
>> >but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course
>
>Catholics are a minority among Christians.

You might want to check your figures; the latest ones on Wikipedia are
2.6 billion Christians in total, 1.345 billion of them being
Catholics. That alone makes Catholics a tiny majority but in practical
terms, you can add to it the 18 million independent denominations that
self-identify as Catholic and, arguably the 100 million members of the
Anglican tradition whose differences with the Catholic Church are
generally more to do with governance structure and liturgical practice
than with theology. I suspect that also applies to quite a few other
Protestant denominations

>So far it's only a fraction of the Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christians, but if it became a majority, would Catholics then no longer be Christian?

Taking your own approach in other discussions, can you suggest a way
in which such a majority might be identified and reliably assessed?

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 11:55:25 AM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:41:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
You mean "consistently referred to himself as a Christian (though
following his own unique type of Christianity) ... "

As I've noted elsewhere, anyone can self-designate themselves under
any label they want or redefine a term to suit themselves but that
self-designation or redefining is not self-validating.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 12:15:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 03:06:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

<snip to a single point>
>
>Catholics are a minority among Christians.
>
Or not. From:

https://www.learnreligions.com/christianity-statistics-700533

"According to the Pew Research Center, in 2015, there were
2.3 billion Christians of all ages living in the world."

....and...

"Nearly one-third or 31.2% of the world's population is
considered to be Christian. The term Christian encompasses a
broad range of denominations, with Roman Catholicism
comprising the largest group made up of around 1.3 billion
adherents. Protestants, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Anglicans,
and many other sub-denominations are included in the count."

So according to those figures, Catholics comprise over 56%
of all Christians, hardly a minority.
>
> So far it's only a fraction of the Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christians, but if it became a majority, would Catholics then no longer be Christian?
>
I'd say no, the basic definition being belief in Christ as
divine, but that's a personal opinion. But given this...

"According to the Center for the Study of Global
Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary,
there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and
organizations in the world today."

....I'd say it's a moot point, since getting even a plurality
of denominations, much less a majority, of religious groups
to agree on just about anything would likely be as
productive as herding cats. And since even a majority of
non-Catholic Christians would still fall short of a majority
of Christians...
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Glenn

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 1:30:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No, I didn't mean that. Your arrogance appears to have no bounds.
>
> As I've noted elsewhere, anyone can self-designate themselves under
> any label they want or redefine a term to suit themselves but that
> self-designation or redefining is not self-validating.

I could not care less about what you "noted". Any group can likewise self-designate themselves as whatever they want, and is no less "self-validating" than by an individual. Neither you nor your sick friends gets to redefine religious terms for others, and you don't get to judge, lest you be judged.
In your alleged belief, there is only one person that can and will judge you, as well as Franklin. And you do suit yourself, so if I am wrong and you are not an atheist, you might want to do some really deep self reflection. But I don't think I'm wrong about you, and I judge you on what you claim to believe, not what I think you should believe, to be a Christian. Yes, I will be judged as well, and am being judged all the time, but not by anyone else's particular interpretation of words in their Bible.
Franklin was an honorable, honest man. Judge him at your peril, not in any life to come, but the one you're in now. Personally, I see no difference in the two.

I'd say that Jesus would be disgusted to read what you just wrote. I know I am.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 1:50:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is a few miles from my house. They have a pretty decent disc golf course on campus that I frequently play.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 2:40:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Given that the winners made the decisions in the first place, I'd say that point is at least arguable.

> >
> >
> >>I see an analogy here with science and ID. Proponents
> >> of ID like to make out that they are doing science but the
> >> overwhelming consensus among practising scientists is that ID doesn't
> >> even come close to being science and that conclusion is accepted among
> >> the scientific community at large.
> >>
> >> Anyone can call themselves Christian or any other designation, but
> >> unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in
> >> the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless.
> >> >but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course
> >
> >Catholics are a minority among Christians.
> You might want to check your figures; the latest ones on Wikipedia are
> 2.6 billion Christians in total, 1.345 billion of them being
> Catholics.

I thought Bills claim was dubious as well.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 2:40:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Oh the irony...

> >
> > As I've noted elsewhere, anyone can self-designate themselves under
> > any label they want or redefine a term to suit themselves but that
> > self-designation or redefining is not self-validating.
> I could not care less about what you "noted". Any group can likewise self-designate themselves as whatever they want, and is no less "self-validating" than by an individual. Neither you nor your sick friends gets to redefine religious terms for others, and you don't get to judge, lest you be judged.
> In your alleged belief, there is only one person that can and will judge you, as well as Franklin. And you do suit yourself, so if I am wrong and you are not an atheist, you might want to do some really deep self reflection. But I don't think I'm wrong about you, and I judge you on what you claim to believe, not what I think you should believe, to be a Christian. Yes, I will be judged as well, and am being judged all the time, but not by anyone else's particular interpretation of words in their Bible.
> Franklin was an honorable, honest man. Judge him at your peril, not in any life to come, but the one you're in now. Personally, I see no difference in the two.
>
> I'd say that Jesus would be disgusted to read what you just wrote. I know I am.

Speaking for Jesus now, huh? Gee, that isn't arrogant at all....

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 4:50:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I don't need to decide how such a majority might be identified and reliably assessed. You are the one who wrote that "Anyone can call themselves Christian, but unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless." You are the one invoking the importance of a majority that gets to decide who is Christian, so you are the one who needs to decide how to count that majority in the first place.

My definition was neither a self-designation (I am not a Christian) nor the imposition of majority rule. I just said that a good definition would be that a religion is Christian if there is no person more central to it's belief system than Jesus. It's pretty broad, but you're perfectly free to call Arian Christians or Gnostic Christians or any others you like "heretical Christians," if you like. The Arians, in fact, had a pretty good run of it, and had history turned out slightly differently, they might have been the winners and Trinitarians might be denounced in the history books as heretical polytheists.

You are right that, at least for now, Catholics are a bare majority of Christians, but the way things are going in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, they'll lose that position pretty soon, as the evangelicals are making big inroads in all those places.

Glenn

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 5:40:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You're about as silly as Ron.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 10:15:25 PM12/14/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:45:38 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:
Cool; enjoy!

Öö Tiib

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 2:05:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Jesus outright commanded Christians (John 13:34) yet they are nasty
towards one another. And that seemingly because of disagreement over
things that said deity did never address in any of books.

mig själv

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 3:30:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
tisdag 14 december 2021 kl. 09:45:24 UTC+1 skrev martin...@gmail.com:

> Anyone can call themselves Christian or any other designation, but
> unless that is accepted by the majority of those actually involved in
> the particular activity, then the self-designation is meaningless.
> >but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course

There are (republican) politicians who pretend to believe in God.
Their voters se them as christians while other persons see them as con artists.
When they gain power they take money from the poor and give to the rich.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 3:45:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:29:20 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
I make no judgment at all about him, I simply corrected your
quote-mine which seems to have annoyed you considerably.

>And you do suit yourself, so if I am wrong and you are not an atheist, you might want to do some really deep self reflection. But I don't think I'm wrong about you, and I judge you on what you claim to believe, not what I think you should believe, to be a Christian. Yes, I will be judged as well, and am being judged all the time, but not by anyone else's particular interpretation of words in their Bible.
>Franklin was an honorable, honest man. Judge him at your peril, not in any life to come, but the one you're in now. Personally, I see no difference in the two.
>
>I'd say that Jesus would be disgusted to read what you just wrote. I know I am.

Sorry, Glenn, but I don't regard you as a reliable judge of what Jesus
would think.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 3:55:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Was the Church not a political authority for longer that it wasn't a
political authority?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 4:05:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
If people who call themselves Christians based their ideas on what the
Bible says Jesus actually said and did then Christianity would be less
awful than it is. Unfortunately they don't. They prefer to imply that
he was a nice tall muscular clean-cut white American who liked to
patrol black neighbourhoods with an assault rifle. It all started with
St Paul, and has got worse since.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 4:15:26 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 16:31:44 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
This is far beyond my knowledge domain. If what you say is correct [1]
and there has been a strong adoptionist element within Christianity
right back to the earliest days and right through to the present day,
then my "belief in the divinity of Christ" as a measure probably
doesn't stand. I say *probably* because I think you could get into an
endless semantic debate about definitions of what is meant by Jesus
being divine, but anyway, it is too fuzzy a term to use as a
definitive measure of what Christianity is.

[1] I'm not suggesting you aren't correct but a very superficial
reading about this seems to suggest that there is a lot of debate
about it all.
I think that suffers from the same fuzziness as I referred to above
regarding the divinity of Jesus. We may have to settle for
"Christianity" as one of those terms which we can't define precisely
but everyone knows what it means, at least in general and the edge
cases don't particularly matter anyway - does it really matter whether
or not Mormons are technically Christian?

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 4:45:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'm not sure when I last saw so many sweeping statements in one short
paragraph.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 6:35:26 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> If people who call themselves Christians based their ideas on what the
> Bible says Jesus actually said and did then Christianity would be less
> awful than it is. Unfortunately they don't. They prefer to imply that
> he was a nice tall muscular clean-cut white American who liked to
> patrol black neighbourhoods with an assault rifle. It all started with
> St Paul, and has got worse since.
>
Yeah there is definitely that morph, the Christian Identity element that
takes the religion well outside its original Levantine context and
Europeanizes or Americanizes it for political and racial purposes.

Early on there was conflict perhaps between Paul and James factions about
the Gentiles, Paul seeking more universalization, recruitment amongst
Gentiles, and accommodation with those not strictly abiding by Torah. The
contrasting tendency would be more Law-abiding and maintenance of a Judaic
character for Christianity.

The Gentile faction won out. And with the problematic anti-semitic aspects
in the Gospels the stage would be set for abhorrent bigotry later alongside
lack of a strong stance against slavery or “old testament” passages that
promote the curse of Ham.

I’m glossing over the history a bit, but in the proto-Nazi era a Germanic
trope for an Aryanized Jesus was there. There was the Pantera legend on
Jesus’s dad. Houston Chamberlin and Alfred Rosenberg may have been
proponents of an Aryanized Jesus that divested him of his Jewish identity.

In Merka it would be too easy to morph these tendencies alongside
exceptionalism (that goes against “city on a hill” beacon to world
universalism mythology) into a white power bastardization of Jesus. I
imagine Europe is not immune to this.

And even without the Christian Identity element at the fringes that could
become more mainstream, there’s an odd coupling of Gospels and the 2nd
amendment (guns and Jesus). Jesus came not to bring peace but a fully
automatic assault rifle. But the crusaders may have similarly thought
themselves in a similar light as they sought to crush the infidels.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 6:40:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:45:25 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
Possibly so but I don't think it is signficant to your argument unless
you can show that they would not regard Catholics as fellow
Christians.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 7:45:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
And you're as hypocritical as any MAGA moron.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 8:05:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
Certainly. The reconquista in Spain is a good example. The tradition is
that Christian good guys eventually conquered the Muslim bad guys, but
it's nowhere near as simple as that. One could make a strong case that
the Muslim south was a lot more civilized than the Christian north.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 8:50:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The significance is clear: it avoids the fallacy of leaving it to something as capricious
as a vote of a majority.

I write that despite the very fact that word meaning does tend to evolve with usage.
Nevertheless, in an important semantic sense, we would like words to refer to
more robust concepts than a majority vote which is clearly something fickle.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 9:40:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It wasn't me who introduced *voting* and it's not the term I would use
- it is really meaningless in this context. The word that I used was
*consensus*, with the example that there is a consensus among
scientists that ID does not qualify as science without a vote ever
having been taken.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:05:26 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:05:25 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

Mr. Tiib, I presume? Email masking in Google is hiding your full address,
but what remains rings a bell, as the English idiom goes; a pretty loud one, at that.

What I'm seeing on this thread is one of the things I love about talk.origins:
the need to adequately respond to sophisticated atheists and other Christianity debunkers
stimulates me to do deep "homework" on the ideas and claims that they propound.

The need is enhanced by the way Glenn does not have the kind of background on these issues
that I have: decades of "homework" from a secular angle which makes possible an in-depth response.
Jesus is depicted as directly speaking to his disciples, not Christians or self-designated Christians in general.
In the very next verse, he is quoted as saying: "By this love you have for one another,
everyone will know that you are my disciples."

I hope you don't think Glenn is out of line by hewing to the spirit of these verses
and eliminating some self-designated "Christians" from being worthy of being Jesus's disciples.


> And that seemingly because of disagreement over
> things that said deity did never address in any of books.

What "said deity" are you referring to? Jesus? He never wrote any books
that have come down to us, and there is only one incident in the Bible where
he is depicted as writing anything. This was when he wrote in the sand,
during the confrontation with people testing him whether he approved of stoning
a woman who was allegedly caught in adultery. This is at the beginning of John 8.

Further on in that chapter is something that illustrates a dilemma I often
am confronted with: should I act on dishonesty and hypocrisy that I see every day
according to Jesus's teachings, or according to the example he set?

Sometimes I go with one, sometimes the other. I often find myself
following the example he set in John 8: 43-47, in a secular sort of way,
about lying and refusal to deal with what I actually write.
And I follow his example elsewhere in dealing with rampant hypocrisy.
Jesus attacked hypocrisy in lots of places in the Gospels, and I have as little patience with it as he did.

Earlier this month, by the way, I nailed John Harshman in a clear case of hypocrisy
on something he has done for at least five years as regards off-topic posting:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/H-SFHyhHp8w/m/ixp2wNr6CgAJ
Re: Vaccination
Dec 3, 2021, 3:03:19 PM

Never again will Harshman be able to deflect me from describing incidents of
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice by a phony pretense at being "concerned" about off topic posting.


Peter Nyikos

PS I believe that at some point I gave you at least a partial explanation
of why I call myself a Christian. If you don't remember me doing that, or
you would like to hear more, please let me know and I'll be very forthcoming.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:15:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
My argument is that defining Christian religion based on a majority view among self-defined Christians is not the best way to define it. It doesn't matter whether the majority would or would not exclude the group you happen to belong to.

And there are certainly plenty of evangelicals who consider Catholics to be non-Christian polytheists. Long ago one of them said to me, "I've never been to a Catholic wedding, only to Christian ones." Another, a Central American evangelical convert from Catholicism, told me Catholics were not Christians because they worshipped many gods, like Peter, and Mary. It's not easy to find statistics on what fraction of evangelical protestants consider Catholics not to be Christian, but it does not seem to be an inconsiderable fraction of them. In any case, my argument is only that defining who is Christian by the opinion of the majority of self-designated Christians seems a poor definition.

I'd stick with "A religion is Christian if no person is more central to its belief system than Jesus."

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:40:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
How did a thread about the ontology of Christianity suddenly become about
John Harshman who hasn’t even posted to this thread or been previously
mentioned? That’s just weird.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 11:10:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
However, that's not far different from how word meanings work. A word
means what a consensus of its users intend it to mean. Sometimes there
are different sets of people who use the word in different ways, and
then the word has multiple meanings. For example, "bank" can be a place
to keep money, or the side of a stream, or something else, depending on
who you are communicating with at the time. I submit that this property
of multiplicity of meanings has relevance to the word "Christian".

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

Glenn

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 11:20:25 AM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As a stimulus, how non-Christian of all of you.

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:35:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Quite obviously, and not just christian iterations. To be more clear - with:

"They were judged not to be Christian by those who were the accepted authorities in regard to Christian belief and practice - seems fair enough with me."

Are you suggesting that a government based on particular religious doctrines "seem fair enough" to you?

Zen Cycle

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:40:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Witness the peters narcissistic personality disorder on display

jillery

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:45:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What you describe above is arguably weird wrt most people, but it's
practically inevitable with the peter.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:55:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I think the difference is that word meanings evolve based on the consensus of the users of the word, not on the consensus of those designated by the word. Sunnis may consider the word "Muslim" to exclude the Shia, and certainly to exclude some Indonesian Muslim sects that retain elements of Hinduism. Most non-Muslims would go with something along the lnes of "Muslims are those who revere the Prophet Mohammed and accept the five pillars of Islam. Evangelical Christians may consider Catholics and the Orthodox to be excluded from the definition of Christian. I think that you get less tendentious definitions from people who don't have a dog in the fight. So, I'd go with a consensus among a majority of users of the word rather than among a majority of those self-designating with the word.

And, as you say, words can have different definitions in different contexts. Even more so in polemical contexts.

Glenn

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 1:25:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You stumble so much with all the rocks you walk around in, that I'm not at all surprised at that logic.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 1:45:26 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:05:25 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> Mr. Tiib, I presume? Email masking in Google is hiding your full address,
> but what remains rings a bell, as the English idiom goes; a pretty loud one, at that.
>
> What I'm seeing on this thread is one of the things I love about talk.origins:
> the need to adequately respond to sophisticated atheists and other Christianity debunkers
> stimulates me to do deep "homework" on the ideas and claims that they propound.
>
> The need is enhanced by the way Glenn does not have the kind of background on these issues
> that I have: decades of "homework" from a secular angle which makes possible an in-depth response.

Wow. Sounds like we're all in for a special treat. Given this grand occasion, I will go
against my best instincts and adopt the postis interruptis style. But the deep nesting
is awkward so I'll do some cleanup.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[PN]
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:05:25 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
[OT2]
> > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 20:30:25 UTC+2, Glenn wrote:
[G3]
> > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 9:55:25 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
[M4]
> > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:41:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
[G5]
> > > > >On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:55:24 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
[M6]
> > > > >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:21:17 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
[G7]
> > > > >> >On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:45:25 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
[B8]
> > > > >> >> Martin Harran wrote:
[M9]
> > > > >> >> > On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:17:08 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
[O10]

[O10] The definition of Christianity I find is a pretty slippery one. One
[O10] could argue that Christianity is defined as "the religion centered on
[O10] Christ the Redeemer," but I think that definition is too reductionist.
[O10] It doesn't cover *how* Christ is Redeemer, or what His title of the
[O10] Redeemer even *means*. Christ is also a pretty important figure in
[O10] Islam, but we don't count Islam as Christian. Christ is an important
[O10] figure in Mormonism, but so is Joseph Smith. Why do we count Mormonism
[O10] as Christian and not Islam? Boggles the mind, truly.
.
[M9] Seems pretty simple to me. A Christian is someone who believes in the
[M9] divinity of Christ

[B8] Ahhh, but would that rule out adoptionists? Some of them, or all of
[B8] them? What about arianism? Sure, all ruled heretic by the early church,
[B8] but for the purpose of Oxyaena's question, that does not bind us of course
.
[M9] and tries to follow his teachings. Moslems do not
[M9] accept his divinity and I don't think Mormons believe Joseph Smith was
[M9] divine.
.
[G7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson
.
[G7] Apparently Martin would deny Jefferson's claim of being a Christian.
.
[M6] "Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion,
[M6] Theistic rationalism, and Unitarianism.[3] He was sympathetic to and
[M6] in general agreement with the moral precepts of Christianity.[4]"
.
[M6] This is just the latest in a long-running series of cites posted by
[M6] you which state the opposite of what you seem to think they state. I
[M6] can't figure out whether you just don't bother reading the things you
[M6] cite or whether you suffer from sort of comprehension deficit.

[M6] Then again, I could be wrong, maybe you're not disagreeing with what
[M6] the article says, it might be it might just be your total inability to
[M6] clearly express your own arguments.
.
[G5] Nothing but insults here, except for the quote. Here's another: "consistently referred to himself as a Christian".
.
[M4] You mean "consistently referred to himself as a Christian (though
[M4] following his own unique type of Christianity) ... "
.
[G3] No, I didn't mean that. Your arrogance appears to have no bounds.

[M4] As I've noted elsewhere, anyone can self-designate themselves under
[M4] any label they want or redefine a term to suit themselves but that
[M4] self-designation or redefining is not self-validating.
.
[G3] I could not care less about what you "noted". Any group can likewise
[G3] self-designate themselves as whatever they want, and is no less
[G3] "self-validating" than by an individual. Neither you nor your sick
[G3] friends gets to redefine religious terms for others, and you
[G3] don't get to judge, lest you be judged.
[G3] In your alleged belief, there is only one person that can and will
[G3] judge you, as well as Franklin. And you do suit yourself, so
[G3] if I am wrong and you are not an atheist, you might want to do
[G3] some really deep self reflection. But I don't think I'm wrong about
[G3] you, and I judge you on what you claim to believe, not what
[G3] I think you should believe, to be a Christian. Yes, I will be judged
[G3] as well, and am being judged all the time, but not by anyone
[G3] else's particular interpretation of words in their Bible.
> > > Franklin was an honorable, honest man. Judge him at your
[G3] peril, not in any life to come, but the one you're in now. Personally, I see no difference in the two.
.
[G3] I'd say that Jesus would be disgusted to read what you just wrote. I know I am.
.
[O2] Jesus outright commanded Christians (John 13:34) yet they are nasty
[O2] towards one another.
.
Get ready. Here's comes enlightenment.
.
[PN] Jesus is depicted as directly speaking to his disciples, not Christians or self-designated Christians in general.
[PN] In the very next verse, he is quoted as saying: "By this love you have for one another,
[PN] everyone will know that you are my disciples."
.
Whoa. The passage in question. (John 13:34)
33 Little children, I shall be with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as
I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come,’ so now I say to you.
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved
you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

What fascinating exegesis. "A new commandment I give to you ..." is not speaking
to Christians in general. We are truly blessed to benefit from [quoting from above]

[PN] The need is enhanced by the way Glenn does not have the kind of background on these issues
[PN] that I have: decades of "homework" from a secular angle which makes possible an in-depth response.

[PN] I hope you don't think Glenn is out of line by hewing to the spirit of these verses
[PN] and eliminating some self-designated "Christians" from being worthy of being Jesus's disciples.

What the heck? What odd twisting are you implying?
Ootiib made an observation that Jesus gave his 'followers' a commandment
to love one another but that (in his estimation) they are nasty to each other.

Somehow you've twisted that into opinions by Glenn that have not even been
voiced in response, or something, I really don't know what because
it's preemptive and presumptuous. Somewhere in there you seem to be
imagining some distinction between "disciples" and other Christians but
it's not really spelled out and doesn't match to what anyone else wrote
and I can't read your mind.

[O2] And that seemingly because of disagreement over
[O2] things that said deity did never address in any of books.

[PN] What "said deity" are you referring to? Jesus? He never wrote any books
[PN] that have come down to us, and there is only one incident in the Bible where
[PN] he is depicted as writing anything. This was when he wrote in the sand,
[PN] during the confrontation with people testing him whether he approved of stoning
[PN] a woman who was allegedly caught in adultery. This is at the beginning of John 8.

Okay, score a trivia point about Gospels not being written by Jesus and they
merely reflect latter day recapitulations of his teachings, and yet the general idea
among the vast majority of Christians is that in some manner, way, shape or form
there was some divine inspiration that kept them true to form.

That of course often gets brought up as an apparent problem when typos
creep in, or translations vary, but that is an argument for another day. The
main thing here is that you've deflected away from the point of a commandment
to love one another as a foremost essential teaching from Jesus himself
which some might consider innately more significant than extensive recasting
of things by one or more Pauls.

[PN] Further on in that chapter is something that illustrates a dilemma I often
[PN] am confronted with: should I act on dishonesty and hypocrisy that I see every day
[PN] according to Jesus's teachings, or according to the example he set?

So this special commentary of your is about turning the discussion to
being about you and your philosophy?

[PN] Sometimes I go with one, sometimes the other. I often find myself
[PN] following the example he set in John 8: 43-47, in a secular sort of way,
[PN] about lying and refusal to deal with what I actually write.
[PN] And I follow his example elsewhere in dealing with rampant hypocrisy.
[PN] Jesus attacked hypocrisy in lots of places in the Gospels, and I have as little patience with it as he did.

So the commentary is about you and how you're like Jesus.

[PN] Earlier this month, by the way, I nailed John Harshman in a clear case of hypocrisy
[PN] on something he has done for at least five years as regards off-topic posting:
.
[PN] https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/H-SFHyhHp8w/m/ixp2wNr6CgAJ
[PN] Re: Vaccination
[PN] Dec 3, 2021, 3:03:19 PM
.
[PN] Never again will Harshman be able to deflect me from describing incidents of
[PN] hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice by a phony pretense at being "concerned" about off topic posting.

So the commentary is about you, how you're like Jesus, and how you
have slain the Dragon Harshman who had not previously be credited in this film.

Martin Harran

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 1:50:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:33:29 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
No, I most certainly am not but, based on your past record, I am not
the least bit surprised at you trying to twist my words into something
entirely different from what I said.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 2:05:25 PM12/15/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:55:25 PM UTC-5, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 12/15/21 5:46 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
[deletia]
> > > I write that despite the very fact that word meaning does tend to evolve with usage.
> > > Nevertheless, in an important semantic sense, we would like words to refer to
> > > more robust concepts than a majority vote which is clearly something fickle.
.
> > However, that's not far different from how word meanings work. A word
> > means what a consensus of its users intend it to mean. Sometimes there
> > are different sets of people who use the word in different ways, and
> > then the word has